Here’s an excerpt from the book Divine Providence: The Mayor, The Mob, and the Man in the Middle. The book takes you inside the world of mob-controlled nightclubs, backroom deals, and political corruption in the times of Buddy Cianci and his turbulent administrations as witnessed by the man in the middle, Pat Cortellessa.
Divine Providence: The Mayor, The Mob, and the Man in the Middle release date August 16, 2021. Order it here.
In the 1950s, Providence, Rhode Island, a gritty, working class city striving to compete with its big brother, Boston, and not-so-distant cousin, New York, had one thing neither of those cities could claim.
Providence had Raymond L.S. Patriarca, the head of the New England Mob and one of the most respected (among those in the organization) and feared (among those who crossed him) bosses in Organized Crime.
Nothing happened in Providence, at least in the criminal underbelly and backroom politics, that Patriarca didn’t know about, manipulate, control, or profit by. All one had to do was invoke the name, Raymond. No last name or further explanation was needed.
Into this world, two men, Vincent Albert “Buddy” Cianci, Jr. and Pat Cortellessa grew up. While Buddy was fifteen years older, their paths worlds apart—Cortellessa came from the West end of Providence and went to public schools. Cianci was born into an upper middle-class family and went to Moses Brown—their lives would be intertwined in ways neither could have imagined.
And the organization controlled by Raymond would cast a shadow over both men.
Pat Cortellessa was born in 1956 and lived on the corner of Chapin Avenue and Messer Street in Providence, Rhode Island. It was a neighborhood of mostly Italian families, triple decker houses, and neat yards. Where the grandparents were on one floor and their kid’s families lived above them. Even if the family outgrew the house, they didn’t move far. Staying in the surrounding streets of the west end of Providence.
When Pat was a kid an older neighbor, Joe Paris, would load up his car and take the neighborhood boys to the Rhode Island Red’s hockey games at the R.I. Auditorium on North Main Street. The Red’s played in the old AHL (American Hockey League), the original feeder system to the NHL. The days of the Red’s playing at “the Arena”—as the place was known—offered kids and adults a chance to see hockey played in all it’s original, often bloody, glory.
No masks, no helmets, few pads. Lots of action between big men on skates and the only thing separating them from the crowd was a short wall and chicken wire.
But before there was the politics of Cortellessa running against Cianci, there was the Providence Club scene, the payoffs and bribes of liquor licenses, the “rent” paid to the mob for protection, and the always volatile mix of alcohol, pretty women, and testosterone-fueled muscle heads with too much brawn and too
Joe Broadmeadow, Divine Providence: The Mayor, The Mob, and the Man in the MIddle
No one worried about letting their kids go to the arena. It was a different era in a city and country where World War II was still a powerful memory, the Korean Conflict became the forgotten war, and Vietnam was a place few Americans had even heard of let alone find on a map.
The West End of Providence in the 1950s and 60s was a world away from the East side where Buddy Cianci, already fifteen years old when Pat was born, would attend private school, followed by college and law school. Pat would take a more pedestrian public-school path. Yet their respective careers, politics for one and running restaurants and clubs for the other, would culminate in first a business association, then a friendship, then a break that would drive them both to face each other in the political arena.
One would end up in prison, the other would dance a fine line between the world of the wise guys, the seductive lure of the nightclubs and bars, and the world of politics. Their unlikely association would forever intertwine them in the history of Providence.
But before there was the politics of Cortellessa running against Cianci, there was the Providence Club scene, the payoffs and bribes of liquor licenses, the “rent” paid to the mob for protection, and the always volatile mix of alcohol, pretty women, and testosterone-fueled muscle heads with too much brawn and too under-utilized brains.
JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services.
Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at info@jebwizardpublishing.com or 401-533-3988.
“The friend of a conqueror is but the last victim…”
Isaac Asimov, Foundation and Empire
During the 70s and 80s, Providence experienced the demise of one empire and the rise of a new one. They both bore the outward veneer of honor and respectability. One criminal at its core, the other did a better job of concealing its genuine nature.
In 1970, perhaps the most powerful man in Rhode Island, with influence extending far beyond the borders of the state and even New England, was Raymond L.S. Patriarca. Respected within Organized Crime by more than just those who worked for him, many considered him a man of honor in an organization with a warped sense of the concept.
But he made no bones about what he was. He ran the family with a ruthless intensity masked by neighborhood generosity and concern for his domain, Federal Hill. All knew him as “the old man,” with a smile and a wave for most and a disdainful look for the cops and prosecutors who targeted him and his organization.
But like all things, after attaining the height of control within the organization, he began the inevitable decline until his death in 1984.
While the Patriarca legacy was reaching its zenith, an unknown phenomenon entered the scene. An up-and-coming lawyer—with a penchant for flair, a quick wit, and an uncontainable ego—began his own rise to prominence in Providence.
A man who, in that unique Rhode Island way, as an assistant Attorney General, once prosecuted Raymond Patriarca.
His ability to draw people to him, to gain their loyalty, brought him from the small city of Providence to the national stage of the Republican National convention where Gerald Ford considered him for the position of his Vice-President running mate.
Vincent A. “Buddy” Cianci began his rise to legendary status as a prosecutor, then turned his sights on politics. As the “old man” faded, “Buddy” began his rise.
The smallest state in the union offers every Rhode Islander unique access to the inner workings of the state. Almost to a person, the people of Rhode Island knew who “Raymond” and “Buddy” were with no need for a last name.
Many, if not most, had a story of encountering one or both men. Yet few people penetrated the inner circle of both empires.
Except for one man.
Pat Cortellessa—businessman, club-owner, entrepreneur, politician — is one of the few who rubbed shoulders with the wiseguys in joint businesses, worked alongside Buddy for mutual benefit until Buddy decided Pat was no longer useful, opposed Buddy in runs for the office of Mayor, and lived to tell the story.
Divine Providence: The Mayor, The Mob, and the Man in the Middle is the story few have ever heard, taking you inside the backroom deals, shady operations, and blood politics that was the Patriarca and Cianci eras.
Pre-order coming soon. Look for more announcements on sales, books signings, and media appearances.
JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services.
Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at info@jebwizardpublishing.com or 401-533-3988.
Since the January 6th attempted insurrection by violent supporters of Mr. Trump, incited by a host of lies about the Presidential Election, the pendulum has changed direction. Many of those involved have been arrested, lost their jobs, and been the object of scorn and derision.
Much of this, for those who broke the law, is well deserved. Mr. Trump, touting his strong on crime positions of the past four years, often proselytized swift and significant punishment for lawbreakers. Those words may now come back to haunt him and those who were blinded by his subtle yet real calls for violence against the government. One thing Mr. Trump is good at is obfuscation of truth to serve his purpose. No one will ever dissuade me from the belief that Mr. Trump had every intention of inspiring that crowd to do exactly what they did.
Yet our reaction need be one in direct contradiction to Mr.Trump’s blatant incitement. There is a danger here in our substituting one philosophy for another and punishing those who disagree with us, that is his approach not ours.
Every single person who attended that rally supporting Mr. Trump had the absolute right to do so. Expressing one’s opinion in protest and free speech is the very foundation of government. Even when that speech is permeated with lies and intentional misrepresentations.
No matter how distasteful such political positions may be, no matter how antithetical they may be to the spirit of America, they are protected under the First Amendment from governmental restrictions or intrusions.
It is when they cross the line into violent acts that the law must apply.
While they may be well within their right to do so, if a company or other organization terminates an employee for their beliefs, for their exercise of their constitutional rights, for expressing an opinion outside of the workplace, absent any criminal act, it comes dangerously close to creating an atmosphere of fear.
As to those who took it beyond peaceful protest, you made your choice, and you must face the consequences. I know many of those who stormed the Capitol building took great delight in many of Mr. Trump’s forceful statements on punishing those who break the law. They just never thought it should apply to them because they bought into the lies of a charlatan.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the name, S.G. Tallentyre, in her biography of Voltaire wrote the following line (which is often incorrectly attributed to Voltaire underscoring the need to research truth)
In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
The line illustrated Voltaire’s philosophy, and it is one we should embrace.
I do not understand how anyone could support Donald Trump. I didn’t understand it in 2016, and I see the past four years as further evidence of his Presidency being the biggest mistake ever in our history.
But seventy-five million Americans voted for Mr. Trump. Seventy-five million. Because Mr. Trump lost the election does not mean they must be silent on their positions. It does not mean they must abandon their positions. It does not mean they cannot work toward 2024 for a Republican candidate to challenge President-elect Joe Biden.
It does mean they must accept the results of the 2020 election and exercise their rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly within the law.
As long as they do that, then while I would disagree with their philosophy I would defend to the death their right to say it.
And I would expect, as Americans, they would do the same. It is what makes America great and always will.
JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services.
Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at info@jebwizardpublishing.com or 401-533-3988.
Signup here for our mailing list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.
Coming this fall from JEBWizard Publishing, a new book by Joe Broadmeadow with Pat Cortellessa
Divine Providence: The Mayor, The Mob, and The Man in the Middle
Here’s the excerpt. To be notified of updates, author appearances, and pre-release discounts sign up for our email list here.
This is the story of a Mayor who would be King, The Mob, who would demand its share of the kingdom, and a man caught in the middle. A story so unique, so endemic to the city, so uniquely Rhode Island, that it casts a spell even to this day.
Divine providence: The mayor, the mob, and the man in the middle by joe broadmeadow
Introduction
The echo of the court clerk’s announcement of guilty on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) count still reverberated in the halls of Judge Ernest Torres’ court as the implication ricocheted at the speed of light throughout Providence.
The King is Dead, Long Live the King!
Vincent A. “Buddy” Cianci, the inimitable, affable, yet darkly complex Mayor of Providence, tarnished forever as a convicted felon. The Providence Renaissance, forever linked to Buddy in fable if not reality, now facing having the curtain pulled back on the myth enveloping the man..
As Shakespeare said, “the evil men do….” The good Buddy would now be buried in the Federal Prison system, removed from the City he loved almost as much as he loved himself.
All that remained now was for someone to pick up the pieces in City Hall and steer the City forward.
Pat Cortellessa—the long-time nemesis of Buddy, fresh from the courtroom where he watched the trial and verdict unfold— now stood in city hall with the man who would bear the burden of acting Mayor, John Lombardi. The scene was surreal, unimaginable just a few short months before. Few expected Buddy to be convicted. Most thought Buddy would emerge dirtied but otherwise unscathed, back in the Mayor’s office once again running his domain. Now the celebration of what many viewed as the end of corruption in City Hall was on.
Pat made his way to the Mayor’s office and walked into what was once the exclusive domain of Buddy. The office, trashed by the celebration, held echoes of so much promise and so many disappointments. Pat wandered over to the window overlooking Kennedy Plaza. The Cafe Plaza building, a prominent place in the plaza, the site of so many battles with Buddy, stood as a reminder of the now former Mayor’s penchant for exerting his control wherever he saw an opportunity.
Pat wondered if it had all been worth it. All those battles fighting for what he believed was right for the city, now mere memories. Buddy was no longer a force to be reckoned with, the conviction took that away. Where it would lead was anyone’s guess.
What lay ahead for Pat, he could only guess. But the memories of the war with the City and Buddy had taken its toll. How had it all come to this?
This is the story of a Mayor who would be King, The Mob, who would demand its share of the kingdom, and a man caught in the middle. A story so unique, so endemic to the city, so uniquely Rhode Island, that it casts a spell even to this day.
And Buddy was now out of sight…but he was far from finished.
JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services.
Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at info@jebwizardpublishing.com or 401-533-3988.
Signup here for our mailing list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.
This sparked the usual round of responses both for and against. At one point, I was asked my opinion on a litany of issues. These were both too complex and too numerous to answer on social media alone, thus the genesis of this latest blog.
And he went to Paris looking for answers To questions that bother him so…
Jimmy Buffett, He Went to Paris
As always, I welcome anyone who wishes to write a piece addressing these or any issues. Submit it to me (joseph.broadmeadow@gmail.com) and I will happily publish it on the blog. My only caveat is the discussion be respectful. Passion is good, impoliteness is not.
Now, here are the questions and my answers.
Are you for legal immigration?
This one is easy. I support legal immigration. No rational person supports illegal immigration, if by illegal immigration you mean someone unlawfully entering this country absent a legitimate amnesty need. But there are exceptions. Creating a path to citizenship for those who were brought here as children by their parents without legal documents is the American thing to do.
However, there needs to be a time limit on the window of opportunity. For example, once an individual reaches eighteen years of age or, if already 18 or older, upon the creation of this program, they must apply for the citizenship process within two years. Miss that window of opportunity, and you are subject to deportation.
Are you for free enterprise?
Again, an easy one. Yes I am. But government regulations play an essential role in ensuring a level playing field. Labor laws, OSHA regulations, EPA standards, and others are all necessary to protect workers, customers, the environment, and those operating a business.
At one time, child labor was a significant contributor to a free capitalist market. Such conditions and practices are abhorrent and government regulations necessary to prevent such abuses.
And Joe Biden hit on something critically important to free enterprise, labor unions.
Labor unions, more than government regulations, made workplaces safer, pay and benefits more fair, and established a balance of power between management and labor. The pendulum swing away from union membership is partially responsible for the earnings gap. In 1983 union membership was 20.1% of workers, today it is 10.1%.
In 1965,the ratio of CEO to Worker compensation was 20 to 1. In 1989, it was 58 to 1. Today, it is 278 to 1. CEO compensation has risen 940% while only 11.9% for workers.
That some unions were corrupted is not an indictment of all unions or union members any more than the prosecution of corporate executives, say Brietbart for example, is an indictment of all executives.
Are you for energy independence?
Seeking energy independence is a critical national security matter. I support renewable energy research and alternative energy sources. Coal, which accounts for almost 25% of electricity production in the US (and more elsewhere) combined with other fossil fuels (which account for 62%,) are two of the most significant contributors to anthropogenic accelerated global warming.
The Department of Defense, those ultimately responsible for defending this nation, has identified climate change as one of the most significant national security challenges facing this country.
We are at the point where the level of Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference (DAI) with the climate may be unrecoverable. Energy independence for the US must also include a significant investment in new energy sources, not just a surge in coal mining or improving fossil fuel extraction technology.
I know this may be heresy to some, but nuclear energy provided by the latest generation of reactors is dramatically less harmful to the environment, and safer overall, than fossil fuels. From an overall safety and environmental perspective, the more you know about fossil fuel, the more concerned you become. The more you know about nuclear energy, the less concerned you become. Once again, it is science that offers the answers, non politicized and unbiased.
Are you for more government regulations?
I support necessary government regulations; Health and Safety (OSHA), labor laws, automotive safety standards, FDA regulations. Speed limits on roadways limiting the speed at which cars can operate, even though they are capable of much higher speeds, makes everyone safer. Same thing with most regulations.
Do you support abortion on demand?
I support a woman’s right to choose and the guidelines laid out in Roe v. Wade. The one aspect of Roe that gets lost in the rancor and emotion is that Roe was about fair and equitable access to abortions. Abortion for medical reasons has always been legal. It was the discrepancy in access to abortions that Roe addressed.
Wealthy individuals always had access to safe and legal abortions because they could afford to find a doctor who would deem the procedure medically necessary.
Poor people did not have that option.
The decision to seek an abortion, for whatever reason, is the most difficult personal choice a woman has to make. The government has no business interfering with such a significant private matter.
One certain way to reduce the need for abortions is a comprehensive health care system offering contraception, family planning, pre- and post-natal care and support, and a strong system of child care assistance for those in need.
Do you think the Iran deal was a good one?
I believe the Iran deal was the best solution to an insoluble problem absent the elimination of theocratic governments. What is now clear, by withdrawing from the Iran agreement, the US has created more instability in the region and lost any opportunity to build a coalition against further nuclear development by Iran.
Instead, we have left it to the Israelis to deal with the problem militarily, which increases the likelihood of open conflict in the Middle East.
The only lasting solution to the Iranian problem will have to come from the Iranian people. By imposing sanctions on a government that cares little for the welfare of its citizens, the ones who suffer most are the very people we need to achieve success.
Much like the Treaty of Versailles, we are imposing draconian demands that will, over time, have the exact opposite effect to what we need in the region.
Organizations like BLM will never gain the support of a majority of Americans until they decry the illegal possession and use of firearms as much as they criticize the actions of law enforcement.
Are you for defunding the police?
Another softball. Of course not. But re-evaluating the tasks assigned to police departments and reallocating funds to more appropriate solutions makes sense. This trend toward the militarization of police (begun when I was on the job and no one embraced the toys more than us) was, in hindsight, a mistake.
But with that said, the reality of American society presents different challenges to police officers than other developed democratic countries. While police officers in many countries do not routinely carry firearms, the fact that there are 300 million weapons in civilian hands makes arming American officers critical.
Most gun owners never commit a crime. But the easy availability of weapons—both legal and illegal—makes their use in the commission of crimes more frequent and thus more of a risk factor.
Organizations like BLM will never gain the support of a majority of Americans until they decry the illegal possession and use of firearms as much as they criticize the actions of law enforcement.
The implicit racism by many officers to persons of color is reinforced by the number of crimes committed by those who illegally possess weapons. This is not blaming the victims of unlawful police actions. This is bringing to the forefront the realities cops must deal with on the streets.
The perception of persons of color having a higher propensity to violence is one of the worst aspects of implicit racism, yet it is equally promulgated by ignorant racists and those who commit violent crimes with firearms.
And the inequities in the criminal justice system–where persons of color face longer sentences and make up a disproportionate number of those in prison–further reinforces the myth absent an understanding of the conditions behind the statistics.
Each of these factors reinforce to equal measure the misconception.
Do you think we should defend Federal Buildings?
Defend them, of course. Intercede in local situations absent specific requests from local law enforcement or elected officials, or absent evidence of abdication of responsibility by local authorities, no.
Do you think cities run by Democrats are thriving? (if so, name one).
This is my favorite. This is the classic example of how correlation does not equal causation. For instance, I could argue there has been an increase in violence in Chicago and other cities since 2016, when a Republican President took office. It correlates, but it doesn’t mean it caused it.
(Now if we want to argue the rhetoric coming from the administration—saying the white supremacists in Charlottesville were good people, for example—creates an atmosphere provoking violent acts, that might be a different discussion.)
To infer from data like the FBI crime reports, which are the ones most used to make these assertions despite FBI warnings against drawing such conclusions, distorts the reality. In one more accurate study of gun violence in Chicago, 70% of the non-fatal gun injuries happened within areas containing just 6% of the city’s population. The study referred to these as “micro-geographic hot spots.”
There is no reliable way to gauge the political affiliation of a city’s administration to the city’s economic health as a significant factor in whether or not a city is “thriving.”
One could argue that under two Republican mayors, Giuliani and Bloomberg, NYC saw an increase in violence and a downturn in economic viability. Under Giuliani’s tenure, New York suffered the most significant terrorist attacks in US history. Does this mean a Republican-led city, or country, is more likely to face a terrorist attack? It may correlate, but it does not establish the cause.
Do you think the virus came from China?
I know the virus came from China because the CDC, WHO, and a host of other organizations–based on verifiable scientific pathogen methodologies–have traced the virus origin to China.
Do you think China is run by an evil regime?
China is a communist country with capitalistic overtones economically and a repressive dictatorship on civil liberties. The implication of these two questions being linked is that China intentionally released the virus. While this makes for a great novel, the evidence suggests otherwise. Unless one wishes to abandon all rationality because of the equally deadly viral affliction of unprovable, often paranoid and irrational , conspiracy theories. I will adhere to staying with the evidence.
As a footnote, I am confident Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci, should they ever conspire to take over the world, would come up with a more controllable and effective method.
Do you believe that the Muller investigation was legit and that the FISA Court was not deceived?
If we cannot have confidence in a man of proven character such as Robert Mueller to act in a manner consistent with the letter and spirit of the law, there is no hope for us. I would say Mr. Mueller’s refusal to offer a conclusion as to the President’s culpability in the matter, much to the chagrin of those who oppose the President, is a clear indication of Mr. Mueller’s character and integrity in rising above the temptation of political gain.
I would also refer you to the Senate Intelligence Committee report as to the indisputable fact of Russian interference in the election and the undeniable evidence of criminal activity. As to the FISA warrant, there has been no evidence produced of any intentional misrepresentation of facts by the FBI in the warrant application. Acting in good faith is the standard in seeking warrants when evaluating information submitted in support of the application.
Sometimes, the information used to obtain a warrant turns out to be incorrect or inaccurate. But the level of probable cause needed to convince this court of the need to surveil American citizens is a high bar and, in this case, did not depend on just one dossier or alleged element in the application.
Do you think BLM is controlled by avowed Marxist?
First, BLM is not a centralized organization like some would believe. They tend to be independent groups across the country operating under a common banner. That someone who is an “avowed” Marxist is involved in such a group is not surprising, but they do not “control” the group. And while I see Marxism as a failed philosophy doomed by the very nature of humans, to embrace such a philosophy in its pure theoretical form is both lawful and acceptable under our concept of free speech.
Do you think Joe Biden bribed the Pres. of Ukraine to remove the Prosecutor investigating Burisma?
No, and no shred of reliable evidence proving this allegation has ever been shown. That is the standard of our criminal justice system, innocent until proven guilty. Much like Mr. Trump is not guilty of collusion with the Russians.
Are you for funding health care for illegal aliens?
If one means an otherwise capable adult who enters the country illegally to work, no. But it is more complicated.
What of an injured or ill young child brought here illegally by their parents? Would you have us deny treating the child? Would you have us let them die because of their immigration status? Or a pregnant mother? You would deny her the choice of abortion and refuse her treatment to bring the child to full term?
These are not yes/no situations, they are much more complicated.
Until we resolve the overarching issue of immigration with effective and humane programs, finding solutions to problems such as healthcare will be impossible.
Why are people fleeing democratically controlled cities?
Migration patterns to and from cities are in constant flux. The political affiliation of the city’s administration is a very low consideration in such decisions. The reasons people leave or move to cities vary with the current economy, crimes, employment opportunities, etc.
I would argue much of the most recent exodus from major cities is because of the disastrous manner in which we handled the pandemic.
Cities like New York with diverse populations, large numbers of foreign travelers, and serving as major points of entry into the country were more vulnerable than other less cosmopolitan cities. These are not circumstances or conditions predicated or created by the political party holding the mayor’s chair.
To imply people are “fleeing” cities because of the political affiliation of the mayor contradicts the facts. People leave cities for a variety of reasons, very few of them political.
I’ll give one example. There was a massive exodus from Boston after the school desegregation order. Whites who could afford it fled the city. The real estate market and rents collapsed; lower-income people filled the gap. It became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Cities experience changes all the time, and the most significant factors driving it are almost always outside the control of the local political structure.
Each of these issues is complex and requires a deliberate and comprehensive analysis to craft the best solutions. I would argue that, despite the constant repetition from this administration about ‘yeah, but what about what Obama did,’ the evidence of corrupt practices and wrongheaded policies put in place by Mr. Trump is more compelling and I believe he has done significant long-term damage to this country.
The facts bear this out. Not one principal member of the Obama administration in eight years was ever charged, let alone convicted of a crime. And if politics influences the Justice Department, even under a Republican Congress, nothing came of investigation after investigation into the Obama administration.
Yet under President Trump, in less than four years, we have the following.
Mr. Trump’s personal attorney (Michael Cohen) charged and convicted.
Mr. Trump’s White House national security advisor (Michael Flynn) charged and convicted.
Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman (Paul Manafort) charged and convicted.
Mr. Trump’s deputy campaign chairman (Rick Gates) charged and convicted.
Mr. Trump’s former campaign advisers (Roger Stone and George Papadopoulos) charged and convicted.
And these are just the top-line indictments. If ever there was a model for a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) case, the Trump administration is it.
When asked to explain his being surrounded by so many people he worked with being convicted, Trump was at a loss for words. Instead, he tried to avoid the question with the usual “But Obama spied on my campaign,” despite this fallacy being disproved.
In fact, had the FBI and the Justice Department not investigated Russian efforts to influence and support the Trump campaign (as detailed in the Senate Intelligence Report) I would argue they should be charged with Obstruction of Justice.
JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services.
Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at info@jebwizardpublishing.com or 401-533-3988.
Signup here for our mailing list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.
William Shakespeare: ‘The Tempest’ (1611) act 2, sc. 1, l. [261]
After I posted a recent piece (Link here), a friend reminded me of a book I’d read several years ago called Star Maker by Olaf Stapledon. The book is a masterful piece of science fiction writing.
Published in 1937, the book tells an imaginative tale of the universe. Told with the dust from World War I still settling, the pain of the depression fresh in the minds of many, and the rise of fascism—both foreign and domestic—on the horizon, Stapledon offered some interesting perspectives.
I decided to re-read the book. Several lines from the introduction caught my eye. These words, written more than eighty years ago, speak of the political chasm between the left and the right, liberal and conservative, that some see today as a new phenomenon.
Perhaps it is not.
Stapledon recognized the vast differences between the left and the right and felt the need to warn his readers of the reaction his words might foster
“At the risk of raising thunder both on the Left and on the Right, I have occasionally used certain ideas and words derived from religion, and I have tried to interpret them in relation to modern needs. The valuable, though much damaged words “spiritual” and “worship,” which have become almost as obscene to the Left as the good old sexual words are to the Right, are here intended to suggest an experience which the Right is apt to pervert and the Left to misconceive.”
It would seem our differences have always been with us. Technology has just made it easier to write or publicize whatever one believes without the safety mechanism of editing, writing with any semblance of logic, fact-checking, or subjecting oneself to the criticism of those one hopes to influence.
We can merely block those who hold opposing views or claim them to be fake. By ignoring or discounting those with whom we disagree, we lose the opportunity to meld opposing views into a consensus of real value.
It would seem we may have always been this way.
While each moment may be unique to those in the middle of it, there really is very little new under the sun.
Follow this blog for upcoming information on all new book releases. And please share this with readers everywhere. All comments are welcome. Or if you would like write a piece to be posted on my blog please send me a message.
Signup here for my email list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.
“What do you say to Americans who are watching you right now who are scared?” Trump looked down and shook his head while this question was asked. “I think it’s a very nasty question. And I think it’s a very bad signal that you’re putting out to the American people. The American people are looking for answers, and they’re looking for hope. And you’re doing sensationalism and the same with NBC, and Concast, I don’t call it Comcast (the parent company of NBC News) for whom you work. You need to get back to good reporting.” “Let’s see if it works.” On chloroquine, Trump said: “We ordered them. We have millions of units ordered.” Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease since 1984, however, told the same briefing there was no evidence the anti-malarial drug worked, and its safety risks are unknown. Trump predicted: “People may be surprised.” * (source multiple outlets)
Mr. President, that is an understatement. I dare say it will shock the entire country.
John Barrymore as Svengali , A still from the 1931 eponymous movie
Mr. Trump is allergic to facts and prefers a sycophantic propaganda-driven media to fawn over, and accept without question, his every word, pronouncement, and declaration no matter how absurd or contradicted by facts. This President cannot handle basic questions that anyone in his position, under these circumstances, would know a reporter will ask.
This man is not responsible for this “Chinese” flu. Still, his ineptness and resistance to early decisive action—considering his well-known disdain for intelligence briefings (which alerted him to the potential crisis with Covid-19 as early as January)—is barely mitigated by VP Pence and Dr. Fauci. History may show the actions of this President failed to prevent increases in hospitalizations, deaths, and the unprecedented collapse of the American economy. (Story link)
In those same intelligence briefings, some Senators—both Democrat and Republican—were smart enough to see the looming financial crisis yet acted in a manner devoid of any sense of honor or decency.
They worried more about their personal well-being than the rest of the country. It will be interesting to see the names of others, privy to the same briefings, who took similar actions.
Regardless of who they are, anyone who used their positions of trust to insulate themselves from the coming financial collapse should resign immediately.
Now there are many rational Trump supports who make cogent and articulate arguments to support the President. Different perspectives, and differences of opinions, are what drive this country to greater achievements.
The very nature of the national emergency may have forced Mr. Trump into taking action. Still, his supporters are correct in arguing he is doing something. If he learned to let someone else have the spotlight, VP Pence and Dr. Fauci, it would mitigate much of the criticism directed at him.
He just cannot help thrusting himself into the spotlight–everything is “beautiful”–even if his statements are devoid of facts, or are outright falsehoods. Yet that has been his pattern since he entered the political forum.
His supporters’ parroted argument that they knew what they were getting—a crude, inarticulate, bull-in-a-china-shop personality—and wanted this politically inexperienced outsider to drain the swamp, falls short under scrutiny. It doesn’t pass the smell test.
If they were seeking such a candidate, they could have done better than this accident of circumstances. The swamp is getting deeper and murkier, it is not draining and the snakes are now poisonous.
Here’s a prediction. However this all plays out, Mr. Trump will resort to his usual course of behavior. He’ll blame all the negative consequences on VP Pence and Dr. Fauci and kick them to the curb. You heard it here first.
For those in the administration and Congress who went along with this Svengali-like personality, when the judgment of history comes on how you followed Trump lemming-like over the cliff, you can invoke the Svengali defense.
In court, a Svengali defense is a legal tactic that purports the defendant to be a pawn in the scheme of a greater and more influential criminal mastermind.
Convincing people he is a “mastermind” might be a stretch. You may have to work at that.
Or, you can say you were just following orders…
*Author’s Note: There is much discussion and disagreement over using Social Media for political discussions. I see the forum as the perfect opportunity to reach a wider audience than might be available to newspaper opinion pieces (which I also write) or other traditional forums.
I have people who read, and comment, on my pieces from all over the world. It opens a line of communication and exchange ideas well worth pursuing.
I also see Social Media as the perfect environment for choice. You can read what I write, respond, agree, disagree, or ignore it completely. The reader has full control.
Polls show a range of opinions on the use of social media for political discussions.
Some of that may be generational where younger generations use social media like my generation used the telephone and my parents generation used cards and letters.
Some of it may be most people are more concerned with being entertained on Social Media by goat videos, sophomoric memes, or jokes than as a source of information.
But what is undeniable is Social Media can have a positive impact when used with proper caution. While using single source reference sites such as Google or Wikipedia may offer some fact checking, accepting the content on Social Media as reliable on its face is dangerous.
But it does offer a platform to stimulate the consideration of multiple points of view. I don’t write these things because I believe I can persuade anyone to change their minds. I write these things so that everyone who reads it will know there are differences of opinions out there.
People often fall into the trap of confirmation bias. If they read something the agree with, they accept it at face value. If it is something they disagree with, they ignore it. By reading different points of view with the intent of understanding–not accepting but recognizing–different perspectives, it opens a door to further understanding.
If I write something that later proves wrong or inaccurate, I try to correct the error. I can admit mistakes. Yet I still see the social media platform as beneficial for the discussion of all topics.
The tone of the discussions is also problematic. Keyboards instill unwarranted courage in some. In a face-to-face discussion, no one tolerates name calling. Most participants would be reluctant to engage in such crass public displays. The anonymity of the online presence acts as an invisibility cloak, masking identity.
My posts all go on my blog, in my name, linked to a variety of Social Media sites and shared by those who follow my blog. I enjoy a polite if intense discussion on differences. I try to be polite and if I cross the line, I apologize, but I still see the platform as beneficial. It gives voice to people who may not otherwise have it.
To make a comparison to when I was growing up. I watched 3 channels, 6, 10, and 12. Then Channel 38 and 56 came along. Once again, I liked them for their entertainment value.
I didn’t watch PBS Channel 36, I wanted entertainment, not enlightenment. I wanted the Three Stooges, not a history lesson. If I wanted to be informed, I watched the news.
Yet, over time I did begin to watch more serious shows. The TV, once just a source of entertainment, became a widespread source of communicating information and bring the wide world into out living room.
Social media, just barely into it’s second decade, is a changing phenomenon.
I think many would prefer Facebook and Twitter and the plethora of others to be just another form of entertainment. As those accustomed to using Social Media almost from birth take over positions of responsibility and political office, that may change as it adapts to their particular preferences.
For myself, I will continue to post and welcome agreement and disagreement from anyone who wishes to take part. I do hope the discussions can be civil, I try to resist–not always with success–resorting to sarcasm, but sometimes I cannot help myself and for that I apologize. But we should still use the platform to express our ideas.
For it is in our differences we find solutions. Perhaps Social Media may be the platform where we once again embrace compromise.
Here are some links to polls addressing the situation.
The prevailing trend to choose what one believes in the media is not just problematic, it is dangerous.
According to some media outlets, there are two virulent plaques in America. The first is that the police are killing people in the course of their duties more than ever before. And that there is a racial bias to the shootings.
This is not just false, it is demonstrably false based on many data sources from official government agencies to multiple media outlets that show a consistent reduction in these incidents.
The second dangerous misconception is that the number of officers killed in the line of duty is higher than it’s ever been and rising. Again, the premise is not supported by the numbers.
US officers killed as the result of crime, 1970-2015
(Green) Officers killed as result of crime (Red) Preceding 10-year average
Preliminary 2018 Law Enforcement Officer Fatalities
January 1 through July 15, 2018 vs. January 1 through July 15, 2017
2018
2017
% Change
Total Fatalities
76
73
+4%
Firearms-related
32
27
+19%
Traffic-related
27
28
-4%
Other causes
17
18
-6%
Please note: These numbers reflect total officer fatalities comparing
January 1 through July 15, 2018 vs. January 1 through July 15, 2017, https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36826297
Now, this is where these two fallacies form a deadly combination. The perception of those inclined to unlawfully possess firearms or otherwise commit a crime, when confronted by police officers, tend toward a more violent level of resistance.
From the officer’s perspective, they anticipate each confrontation likely will pose a deadly threat to themselves or their fellow officers. Officers aren’t trained to apply different risk assessments of suspects based on skin tone. We teach them that every encounter is a potentially deadly one. It is a necessary survival mindset, but one that must be tempered by experience and sound judgment.
When officers operate in an environment rife with false or inflated perceptions of risk, the appropriate level of caution and tactics may be unreasonably amplified.
The false perception of a problem, promulgated and promoted by the media frenzy, masks the reality and the results are deadly.
There is also the political factor officers face; both internal and external. Politicians and some members of the command staff, far removed from the realities of the street, are quick to criticize officers for political expediency or job preservation. Decisions made in difficult circumstances under enormous pressure with mere seconds to choose are autopsied for days by people who may have never found themselves in such situations.
Thus officers confront the perfect storm; all-to-common violent behavior by individuals with no respect for law, an atmosphere charged with perceived high levels of risk, and the possibility of being thrown to the wolves by politics.
Is it any wonder officers are shying away, either intentionally or by direction, from effective street policing. As a friend of mine, a former supervisor with a federal agency, liked to say, “Big cases, big problems. Little cases, little problems. No cases, no problems.”
Officers have the right to live and to protect themselves. We owe them the opportunity to do their job based on sound judgment and accurate information.
The loss of any officer is a tragedy. Even with the number of officers being killed showing a decline, one is too many.
Police officers must face the reality of the number of weapons, both legal and illegal, in this country. This almost guarantees a tragedy. Whether it is a felon with an extensive and repetitive criminal record on the street because of the incestuous nature of the lawyers (prosecutors and defense counsel) and judges minimizing cases for expediency or an angry and distraught individual, absent any prior criminal record, the guns pose a danger.
Add into the mix a “corrections” system that in many instances in nothing more than an advanced degree program for crime and you have all the ingredients for a fatal encounter.
Combine the misconceptions of these false and fable-like stories with the prevalence of weapons in America and tragic incidents like the most recent shooting of an officer and an innocent bystander in Weymouth, MA will become more and more common. The trend toward fewer police-suspect confrontations will end and likely grow.
Read, and comment as I know you will, my guest post on a quite interesting blog by a retired Canadian RCMP Homicide detective turned brilliant author, Garry Rodgers
U.S. President Richard Nixon on November 3, 1969, said, “And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support.” Nixon’s plea to this so-called ‘silent majority’ is similar to Mr. Trump’s pandering to his not-so-silent and decreasing supporters.
Both presidents missed the point.
The majority of Americans are neither silent nor rabid. They are mostly reasoned, rarely pugnacious, and care deeply about their country. They are neither “my country, right or wrong” zealots nor “America has failed in its responsibilities” apologists.
If they are guilty of anything, it is an innate sense that America can survive any administration, any do-nothing Congress, or any political crisis. Yet, when faced with such a mess, this soft-spoken majority will rise to the occasion and let their voices be heard at the polls.
They do not focus on party affiliation, Congressional majorities, or rhetoric. What they focus on is ensuring the country steers itself back to the slightly conservative side of centrist policies.
It has been the hallmark of the most successful periods in American history.
Resisting involvement in European internecine wars until it became necessary.
Formulating trade and foreign policies guided by a modicum of consideration for any adverse effect on the rest of the world.
Implementing meaningful government programs to sustain and support people in need while assuring an equal opportunity to rise out of poverty through access to education and hard work.
Some would argue we have stepped away from that America. I would agree. Post-World War II America went through growing pains as a world power, stumbling in places, i.e., Vietnam, South America, while achieving great things elsewhere.
The changing nature of asymmetric warfare, the growing number of nuclear-armed countries, and globalization has changed the geopolitical world we live in.
And we must change with it.
The fissure of partisan politics has grown over the last several Presidential administrations, hastened by the death of a Congress once guided by the art of compromise.
Through this, the majority of Americans may have lost their focus. But no more. The rising tide of change is evident everywhere. No longer will the majority of Americans sit back and let the screamers and the schemers control the field. No longer will lobbyists pull the strings of the PAC money addicted Congress. No longer will the country suffer a President who embarrasses America on the world stage
The soft-spoken majority will not raise their voices, chant slogans, or poison the public discourse with lies or ‘fake’ anything. They will take to the ballot box and send a clear and unambiguous message.
If they are guilty of anything, it is an innate sense that America can survive any administration, any do-nothing Congress, or any political crisis. Yet, when faced with such a mess, this soft-spoken majority will rise to the occasion and let their voices be heard at the polls.