Making A Murderer: 10 Episodes, My 2 Cents

I'm not the first, and I won't be the last person to weigh in on Netflix's documentary series, Making A Murderer. To say the 10 episodes riveted me is an understatement. My wife and I devoured each installment with plenty of pauses throughout to discuss, debate and vent. It's a testimony to the series' creators, Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, that one cannot reach the narrative's conclusion without the heartfelt conviction that Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey were framed and railroaded by the Mantiwoc County Sheriff's Department for the murder of Teresa Halbach.

Throughout the unfolding tragedy of Making A Murderer, the various local prosecutors and cops, as well as a public defender and his investigator are skillfully fleshed out to represent the worst that our justice and legal system have to offer. Similar to the Paradise Lost documentary series surrounding the West Memphis Three case, alternate suspects and theories are offered while heroes and villains are clearly defined. Honestly, I challenge even the most pro-cop viewer to continue standing behind the likes Lenk, Colborn and Wiegert once the dust finally settles. Likewise, even the most conservative viewers must acknowledge at least some grudging admiration for the efforts of defense attorneys Dean Strang, Jerry Buting and the heavy hitters from the Innocence Project.

Needless to say, I displayed herculean will power for three days, resisting the urge to research the hell out of Steven Avery's case online before concluding the series. As soon as we finished the final episode last night, however, I was online doing a virtual paper chase until the wee hours of the morning. I'm a savvy enough student of film to know that all filmmakers have a story to tell and a vision to impart, even those making real-life documentaries. I presumed details contrary to Avery's innocence lurked somewhere on the cutting-room floor. It only took me three minutes to find the four most damning unaddressed evidentiary claims that never made their way into Riccairdi and Demos' story:

1)  In the months leading up to Halbach’s disappearance, Avery called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take photos of his cars. Halbach complained to her boss that she didn’t want to go out to Avery’s trailer anymore. Halbach told her boss, coworkers, friends and family that Avery once met her on one of her visit wearing only a towel.

Question: If true, how the hell was this left out of the trial footage and the documentary? Was this ever even addressed in the trial? I'd love to see the transcript of any statement or affidavit attesting to this claim.

2)  On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery called her cell phone three times. On the two calls placed prior to Halbach's arrival on his property, Avery blocked his phone number using the *67 feature to hide his identity. On his third and final call, placed after Avery claims she left his property, Avery did not use the *67 feature.

Question:  If true, the first two calls are indicative of suspicious and or stalking behavior. The last "unblocked" call can then be viewed as an alibi call to cover Avery's tracks. Once again, I must ask - was this ever addressed in the trial? I'd love to see the transcript and the incoming call log from Halbach's cell phone.

3)  Avery purchased handcuffs and leg irons only three weeks prior to Halbach's disappearance.

Question: Once again, if true, how the hell was this left out of the trial footage and the documentary, especially in light of Brendan Dassey's seemingly fantastical "confession involving a bondage/torture killing.

4)  Avery's DNA - but not blood - was found on the hood latch to Halbach's RAV4. Even if you believe some of Avery's blood sample from his previous conviction was planted inside Halbach's vehicle, there really is no way non-blood DNA (skin cells or bodily fluid ) can be reliably preserved for transfer like blood.

Question:  If this claim is true and part of the trial transcript, then why was it not presented in the documentary along with the State's blood evidence? Avery's DNA on the hood latch also supports a statement in Brendan Dassey's account where he speaks about moving Halbach's vehicle to the back of the Avery property and removing the SUV's battery.

Considering the inculpatory nature of the above four points, I find myself even more uncertain of Avery's guilt or innocence if these details end up proving true. (NOTE - I'm currently chasing down transcripts and primary sources regarding these claims.) Of course, everyone who watches Making A Murderer has a gut theory regarding what really happened. So here's mine:

1)  Avery killed Halbach alone. His nephew, Brendan Dassey, was not present for the killing. The killing was not conducted in any way similar to the prosecution's sex torture scenario. Avery had an obsession with Halbach. He lured her to his property, and then made a move on her inside or directly outside his trailer. Halbach got free of Avery and attempted to flee to her RAV4 and escape. Avery followed her to the vehicle brandishing his gun in an effort to frighten her into compliance. Under threat from the gun, she moved into the rear compartment where Avery tried to rape her. She struggled, and he eventually killed her in the vehicle's rear compartment using his hands and the gun. This explains her blood in the vehicle's rear. Her resistance yielded the cut on his hand, which explains his blood by the RAV4's  ignition and steering wheel when he moved the vehicle into the garage or some other place out of view from the road.

2)  Avery removed Halbach's body from the back of the RAV4 and put it inside the burn barrel. Once inside the barrel, he partially dismembered the body, which explains the lack of blood on the garage floor. Avery then called over his nephew, Brendan Dassey, to help him clean up the crime scene, dispose of Halbach's corpse in the fire pit and move the RAV4 to the back of the property. Brendan was with Avery when he burned the body. Most of the body burned in the fire, but parts were left behind inside the barrel. Any remains at the the third site on the Avery property were probably taken from the fire pit or the barrel by animals.

3)  After Officer Colborn went to the Avery property to question Steven regarding Halbach's disappearance, he conducted an illegal search of the property and found the RAV4 in the back part of the lot. He called it in and got the positive ID. Knowing that he'd found the vehicle illegally without a warrant, he contacted his superiors, most probably Detective Lenk. Lenk told Colborn to tell no one, and then the Mantiwoc police colluded with the volunteer searchers and arranged to have the van "discovered" by the volunteer searchers. When blood evidence, etc. proved underwhelming inside the vehicle, Lenk and Coloborn went back to Halbach's family, secured the RAV4's spare key. This is when Lenk or another Mantiwoc cop went to Avery's previous DNA evidence, stole the blood and then transferred Avery's DNA to the RAV4's spare key. The key was then planted to bolster the case.

4)  Brendan Dassey cooperated with Avery in disposing the body, but that's it. Everything else in his confession is simply confabulation prompted by the detectives interrogating him.

5)  The deleted voicemail is an angry message left by her ex-boyfriend that was deleted by the family after they were told by the Mantiwoc cops that anything not implicating Avery might be used to establish reasonable doubt.

6)  Dean Strang, Avery's attorney, believes Avery is guilty, and Brendan Dassey is innocent of everything but his participation in disposing the body.  However, Strang also knows that the conviction is grossly unjust because of police misconduct and planted evidence.

Ultimately, I believe Avery killed Halbach. However, given the police misconduct, the jury should have acquitted him due to obvious reasonable doubt presented at trial. In truth, the best resolution would be for an appeals court to award Avery a new trial where all the untainted evidence can be presented by an investigation and prosecution team wholly unconnected to any of the local departments involved.

I'd love for anyone to tell me their thoughts and where my reasoning may have gone wrong. I'm certainly not 100% certain of my theory, and I'd welcome some fresh perspectives.

Cat & Cat on the Road

Here's a brief rundown of my upcoming events and signings:

Saturday, November 7        1:00-3:00 PM
Elyria Public Library
"Cascade of Authors"
320 Washington Ave
Elyria, Ohio 44035

I will be featured along with a number of other local authors. I'm doing a fifteen minute presentation regarding Cat & Cat and taking any questions from the audience. I will also have a table set up where I will be selling and autographing copies of Cat & Cat. Books at this event are $20.00.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, November 10        7:00 PM
Avon Lake Public Library
"Tuesday Talks"
32649 Electric Blvd,
Avon Lake, OH 44012

I will be reading from Cat & Cat and some new material and taking any questions from the audience. I will also be selling and autographing copies of Cat & Cat. Books at this event are $20.00.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, December 6        1:00 PM
Loganberry Books
Sunday Signing
13015 Larchmere Blvd,
Cleveland, OH 44120

I will also have a table set up where I will be selling and autographing copies of Cat & Cat. Books at this event are $20.00.

Parallel Universes, Matrix Glitches, Butterfly Effects and Burgess Meredith

Okay, here's one for all you fringewatchers out there. Buckle up. I'm warning you ...

For the last several years, I've been aware of some general weirdness lurking out in the hinterlands of reason. I first heard about the Mandela Effect late one night (or early one morning) on Art's Bell Coast to Coast radio show. That was back in the mid-2000s when I was pulling a second job with RGIS Inventory Specialists and driving home in the wee small hours of the morning. I vividly recall tuning in mid-show and listening for about twenty minutes while trying to piece together that night's topic. Something about thousands of people mis-remembering monumental events such as 9-11, Nelson Mandela's Death or The Challenger Disaster. Bell's guest, a very intense gentleman with a reedy voice, postulated that these incorrect or false memories were proof positive that our universe - the space-time continuum, if you will - is not exactly as it seems. Every day we file memories away in our mind, and for the most part these memories jibe with humanity's recorded history and consensus reality. However, in some instances, we remember some specific event - such as Nelson Mandela dying during the 1980s while in prison - only to learn later that our memory never truly happened. Of course, Bell's guest had some theories to explain this phenomenon he eponymously labeled as The Mandela Effect:

1)  We're all living inside a virtual, simulated world - a huge computer program, if you will - a la The Matrix. When confronted by an incorrect memory, like Mandela's death in prison, we are actually encountering a "glitch in the Matrix." In other words, the computer program governing our sense of reality contains an error: two deaths for Nelson Mandela, one death in the 1980s, and one death in 2013. This theory goes on to propose that numerous such "glitches" are evident all around us if we just look for them, e.g. two dates for the Challenger Disaster, 1984 & 1986; a famous portrait of Henry VIII holding a turkey leg that never existed; two different spellings for the famous cartoon Bears, Berenstain and/or Berenstein; multiple or non-existent deaths for celebrities like Ernest Borgnine, Fidel Castro, Larry Hagman and Betty White.

2)  Somewhere in our recent past, the wall separating our universe from another parallel universe collapsed. Because this cataclysm occurred on a quantum level between quarks and other subatomic particles, we never consciously sensed anything. As a result of this collision, the parallel universe melded with our universe, and two divergent and sometimes inconsistent timelines now exist side by side. Whenever our minds perceive these timeline anomalies, think of the common deja vu sensation, we filter out any anachronisms and explain away the weirdness with myriad rationalizations. The further we move away from the collision, the more our universe blends with the parallel universe, and the harder it becomes to remember our own separate history before the collision.

3)  Time travel exists in our future. Time travelers from our future have traveled back to the past and altered various events, sometimes intentionally and sometimes by accident. These changes are called Time Shifts. When we mis-remember things like Mandela's death or the spelling of the Berenstain Bears, our minds are actually recalling our reality before a Time Shift occurred. This theory of the Mandela Effect dovetails quite nicely with the concept of The Butterfly Effect, which postulates that one small insignificant disturbance in the timeline - e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings - interacts with reality in such a way as to drastically alter history and create chronological hurricanes in the space-time continuum.

Now the skeptic in me dismissed all this stuff immediately when I heard it, filing it away in my mind for future reference along with hundreds of other kooky notions I've encountered over the years: hollow earths, fake moon landings, 9-11 conspiracies, falsified Obama birth certificates. Occasionally, I'd stumble across mentions of the Mandela Effect in my online reading, but I never really gave it much thought. Then, a week ago, I found myself musing about the Mandela Effect while perusing an article on The Simulation Hypothesis, an actual philosophical argument that pretty much fleshes out explanation 1) above. Later that same week, I was researching various schizophrenic delusions - namely Capgras & Cotard Delusions - and found myself considering the Mandela Effect again. And lastly, this morning I came across the Mandela Effect on Coast to Coast AM again. My curiosity suddenly re-piqued, I decided to do a little digging and re-familiarize myself on the weirdness.

And then it happened ...

I went through Art Bell's archives and discovered that the show I remember hearing around 2005-2006 never aired. According to the Coast to Coast AM website, Art's first shows addressing Time Slips occurred after my employment ended at RGIS. Hmmm. I dug more and came up with the program I remembered, but that aired in 2009. And the guests were Whitley Streiber and Starfire Tor, two pretty famous fringe authors that I am VERY familiar with. I couldn't find my reedy voiced man unless I went to shows in 2007 & 2009 with Lionel Fanthorpe, only he has a decidedly British accent that I don't recall at all. I also discovered that Fiona Broom first began writing about the phenomenon in 2005, but the term Mandela Effect itself did not originate until much later. Once again, well after I quit working late nights with RGIS.

Weird.  Or is it ..?

Looking back on my life, I've been living with the Mandela Effect since my childhood. I don't know how many times our family dinner table discussions revolved around mis-remembered events or mis-appropriated deaths. A running joke for years debated the "dead or alive" status of actor Burgess Meredith. We all "knew" the Penguin kicked the bucket back in the early 80s, but then, lo and behold, he'd pop up in another Rocky sequel. The same thing with Elizabeth Taylor, Ernest Borgnine and most recently Kirk Douglas (still alive??) and Lloyd Bridges (dead??). In addition to mis-remembered deaths, my brothers and I also hotly contested the existence of TV episodes that we'd "seen at Grandma's," but never actually aired in our reality, i.e. the last Gilligan's Island where the castaways were rescued or the last Hogan's Heroes where WWII ended. I don't know why we only ever saw these episodes at my grandmother's house. Perhaps, her residence on Trowbridge Avenue existed in some nexus between parallel universes. Whatever the explanation, I'm sure my brothers and I could come up with dozens of more instances where our memories conflict with consensus reality and recorded history.

So what does this mean? Are we truly encountering glitches in a computer simulation, or remnants of a parallel universe, or time slips caused by errant time travelers? Or is the human mind just a relentless story-telling machine that continually reorganizes, revises and rewrites the interior monologue narrative we call life? I certainly don't claim to know the answer. I'm just positive Burgess Meredith died shortly after filming Rocky I. I know because I watched coverage of his funeral live at my grandma's house.

In Praise of Country Music - "Blowing Away" by Eric Kaz

I write a lot about jazz, blues, bluegrass and classical music. Those who know me even casually hear me constantly rave about my favorite funk bands - Fred Wesley & the JB Horns, George Clinton, Dirty Dozen Brass Band, Big Sam & Funky Nation, EW&F. I've also been known to expound upon Latin music - salsa, son, even some tejano - and other eclectic genres from around the world: Gaelic, Zydeco, Marabi to name a few. Needless to say, I'm very opinionated about my taste in rock music - The Guess Who, Chicago, Blood Sweat & Tears, Toto, Ambrosia, Hall & Oates etc. - which I guess is now called "Classic Rock," or as my young coworkers refer to it "Grandpa Rock." I almost never talk about country music, however.

Buddy Rich, being wheeled into the operating room after one of his heart attacks, was asked if he was allergic to anything. "Yeah," he replied. The ER nurse waited with pen in hand. "Country music," he quipped. I used to laugh at that anecdote uproariously when I was a kid. Although I loved bluegrass, I hated country music. It all sounded like Porter Wagoner to me. I couldn't understand or relate to it. The closest I got was country rock, groups like Pure Prairie League, American Flyer, Atlanta Rhythm Section and The Allman Brothers. Later on, in college, I used these groups as a starting point to explore country music in general. Two songwriters, in particular, served as my bridge into "real" country, Craig Fuller and Eric Kaz.

Fuller, the Columbus, Ohio native formerly with Pure Prairie League, and Kaz (songwriter to the stars) made up one half of the country rock "super group" American Flyer. The other half was comprised of Blood Sweat Tears alum Steve Katz and The Velvet Underground's Doug Yule. I stumbled onto American Flyer via Steve Katz, who I admired from BS&T and its precursor, The Blues Project. When it came to American Flyer, however, Katz took an immediate back seat to Fuller and Kaz who - between the two of them - wrote every memorable song on the group's two stellar albums: American Flyer & Spirit of a Woman.

Of all the great country rock tunes on these albums, one truly blew me away (pun intended), Eric Kaz's "Blowing Away" from Spirit of A Woman. Fuller handles the mournful lead while the haunting background vocals are intoned by a young Linda Ronstadt, one of the many stars lining up to sing Kaz's seemingly endless string of pure gold hits. The lyrics - maudlin, melancholy and wistful - are pure country and great in the hands of an able male vocalist like Fuller. But years later, in the hands of superstar Ronstadt, "Blowing Away" truly becomes transcendent on her Living In the USA album.

Truth be told, Ronstadt's version clearly shows that "Blowing Away" is a woman's song, a fact made even more evident by the other female artists like Cher and Bonnie Raitt who have recorded and performed Kaz's hit it to great acclaim. Bonnie herself says as much in this live recording of Blowing Away. Here we have a stripped down arrangement of the tune with Raitt's inimitable phrasing transforming Ronstadt's anthem into a pure country, honky-tonk torch song. A quick word on Bonnie Raitt. I'm constantly and consistently blown away by everything I hear her perform. Not only is she one of the best country vocalists of all time, she sings flawless background harmonies and plays some seriously kick-ass blues/slide guitar to boot. As her rendition of Tennessee Waltz with Nora Jones shows, she can also get down and tasty with the best of them.

But back to "Blowing Away." The song reaches its pinnacle during a live memorial concert for Little Feat frontman Lowell George. In this version, we have Fuller, Ronstadt and Raitt all sharing vocals while Kaz, the songwriter himself, backs them on keyboards. NOTE - this is a live recording of an intimate and very exposed arrangement performed in a large concert hall. From the first note, these pros find themselves fighting sound and acoustic issues symptomatic in every cavernous venue. At the opening, Linda gets a pitch and fearlessly opens a cappella. Then Craig hears his guitar is too loud in the mix and plays it down. Any musician watching spots the non-verbal communication between Linda and Craig immediately, and every time I see Ronstadt cup her left hand over her left ear at :25, I want to hug her. By the time the three-part harmony comes in, though, these cats have solved it all.

Chills!

And you know they've nailed it because Linda comes off mic after the chorus with the biggest smile on her face. That smile also promises what follows will be epic. And it doesn't get much more epic than Bonnie Raitt's turn at the verse. Whereas Linda rendered the melody straight and angelic, Bonnie bends the meter and melody, phrasing the verse in a smoky, gutsy way that indelibly stamps it all her own. Bonnie is first and foremost a musician, and this is exactly how she approaches her vocals, instinctively finding alternate notes and meters the way a guitarist, pianist or horn player develops a phrase. This time, when Fuller and Ronstadt return, Linda takes the high harmony, and for the next choruses the three create an aura and energy that transfigures the tune to another level.

Songs like "Blowing Away" helped me discover pure country music. And performances like Ronstadt, Raitt & Fuller's took me from appreciating country musicians to finally loving pure country in an of itself. Not all of it, mind you. I still don't like Porter Wagoner. But over the years, I've developed a very strong and specific taste for today's pure country artists like Bonnie Raitt, Vince Gill, Alison Krauss, Brad Paisley, Alan Jackson & Martina McBride. Top-notch songwriters and performers evoking the same poignant emotions as traditional country while never compromising melody and musicianship in favor of what I call "Pop Crap". (You know what I mean -voice synthesizers, hysterical vocal histrionics, monotonous computerized rhythms and other studio gimmicks that hacks use to try and hide the fact that they can't carry a tune or play a lick.)

So the next time you check out what I'm listening to on Spotify, don't be surprised if you see some country artists sprinkled in with all the rest of the stuff I typically listen to. Good music is good music, pure and simple. And as a bonus, here's my favorite Eric Kaz tune, "Cry Like A Rainstorm," performed by Craig Fuller & Kaz together, by Linda Ronstadt, and finally by Bonnie Raitt (my favorite version, btw). Just don't expect me to start drinking Budweiser.

Where Have You Gone Joe Mannix?

This blog can go a million different ways. I've written it a million different times in a million different ways in my head. Since I don't want to lose my main point over the next umpteen paragraphs, I'll state it right here. TV needs another Joe Mannix. I'm sick of expert consultants - Monk, Castle, Psych, The Mentalist, Elementary - who "work" with police departments. I mean does this job even exist in real life? Yes, police departments call in outside experts versed in particular fields to help with certain cases. But no police department hires private expert consultants to investigate murders. The very notion is absurd.

So, to paraphrase Paul Simon, I'll ask again. Where Have You Gone Joe Mannix? Whatever happened to the private detective on TV? Where are all the Jim Rockfords and Thomas Magnums? Hell, I'd even take one of the freakin' Simon Brothers.

By now, I'm sure my younger readers are scratching their heads and asking, "Who the hell is Joe Mannix?" Okay, then, please let me educate you. You just need to watch the first five minutes for now. Look at that opening sequence! Dig the music, from the brassy, pulsing waltz theme to Jack Sheldon's sweet background trumpet in the opening sequences.

Today's kids would call a guy like Mannix "Boss." From loading his gun to shaving while driving (the best sports car EVER) to scamming a free cup of joe from a jovial news vendor to goofing on his nerdy coworkers, Mannix is the single coolest human being to trod planet Earth. Ever. Throughout season one, our hero struggled as the round peg in entire detective agency comprised of square A-holes. Mannix was a gumshoe John Henry, man against machine. He pitted his street savvy, bruised knuckles and way with the ladies against Intertect's bean counting, number crunching Lew Wickersham and came out Boss every time. Finally, Mannix got sick of being a cog in the machine and struck out on his own. And that's where the legend really began.

From season two through the end of the show's run, Mannix worked out of his home office and employed a beautiful secretary, Peggy, as played by Gail Fischer. The new opening credits did away with Intertect and re-imagined the iconic theme song as a breezier, less brassy affair. The piano break hearkens us to a smoky cocktail lounge rather than a downtown office skyscraper. Mannix worked case after case fist-fighting bad guys, bedding down beauties and wearing the single greatest collection of sports coats ever assembled. Sure, lots of mamby pamby peaceniks complained about the violence, especially whenever one of Joe's old army buddies paid a visit. But waa waa waa.

Look, Mannix was a guy's guy, and he did stuff his own way. The cops liked him personally and put up with him professionally. But he was never on their payroll. Mannix was his own man doing his own job. He would have looked at Adrian Monk or Patrick Jayne and shook his head. Cops are cops. PIs are PIs. And never the twain shall meet. To explain this in a way all you kids can understand, it's like trying to leash a dire wolf in a pack of hunting dogs. Guys like Mannix don't need the cops until it's time to mop up and start cuffing the bad guys.

Which brings us right back to my point. Why are their no PIs on TV anymore? Why does every investigator need to work with the police? The first network who gets the bright idea to bring back the TV PI will have a hit on their hands provided the writing and acting are first-rate. Hell, today's audience will think someone just invented the wheel. Which begs the inevitable question. Why not just remake Mannix?

My first reaction is "Why not just remake the Bible?" Okay, maybe that's a little extreme, but you get my point. Mike Connors didn't play Mannix. Mike Connors is Mannix. Not only that, he pretty much controls all rights to the character. Good for you, Mike. However, to be fair, a retooled Mannix could work if you had A-list writers and production, real sports jackets and real cars, and an every-man lead as charismatic and balls-to-the-wall cool as Mr. Connors. A short list of leading men come to mind: Jon Hamm, Jensen Ackles, Nate Fillion. I'm not saying these guys could ever be Mannix like Mike Connors. But I think they could do a pretty decent job playing the role with the same kind of style, humor and general all around savoir-faire.

Needless to say, a better approach would be to just create a new engaging PI character. (I'm actually trying to do this in my next book, White Picket Jungle, btw) All you need to do is take a little Mannix, a little Magnum, a little Rockford, a smidgen of Longstreet, maybe even some Barnaby Jones. Not too much Cannon, though. A little Cannon goes a long way if you know what I mean. (You kids have no idea what I'm talking about.) This new PI would need to know how to throw down with his fists, but even more importantly take a goddamn punch. That was the thing about Mannix. He was tough as nails, don't get me wrong. But he also got his ass kicked quite a few times. And then he'd get back up, dust off his sports jacket, patch his bullet wound with some fishing line and get back on the job. Which is pretty much the definition of being tough as far as I'm concerned.

For those of you who'd like to know more about Mannix, Youtube has plenty of the old episodes. And JoAnn M. Paul's And Now Back To Mannix is available on Amazon and Scribd. So in closing, I'd like to leave you with a classic Mannix scene with myriad elements that make Joe Mannix the bossest PI who ever laced on a pair of patent leather gumshoes. He orders effing strudel. Priceless! Oh, and if you can't place the face, that's a young Tom Skerritt as the hippie reporter. And now, back to my life ...

Some (Hopefully) Quick Answers To Some Hard Questions About the Rebel Flag

First off, I understand my previous post was waaaaay too long for some readers. My sincere apologies. In an effort to present my opinions precisely and thoroughly, I may have erred on the side of circumlocution. Damn! I did it again. Make that long windedness. So, for the sake of brevity, I'll restate my opinions here as succinctly as possible and refer to my previous blog for any further explication. Damn, I did it again, didn't I? Further explanation. How's that?

1)  I do believe that southern secession, the creation of the Confederate States of America (CSA) and our resulting Civil War were ultimately and indivisibly rooted in the issue of slavery. I believe calling the Civil War a conflict over "state's rights" is a way of dodging the disturbing reality and cultural heritage of the "peculiar institution." More on this below. Believe me.

2)  I do believe there was a fundamental difference between the Confederate Government's Cause and the Cause of rebel fighting men in the field. The Confederate Government waged war to preserve slavery and redress other long-standing issues they had with Northern States and the federal government (Once again, more on this below.) Rebel soldiers and sailors, on the other hand, fought bravely and honorably to protect their friends, families, homes and, yes, their way of life from federal armies marching into the south to "restore order" and punish secessionists. A careful reading of myriad contemporary journals, letters and battlefield accounts from Confederate soldiers, officers and civilians offers little if any proof that the soldiers or citizenry saw the war as anything but a reaction to Northern aggression.

3)  I do believe the Rebel Flag rightfully belongs on Civil War memorials wherever they may be located and at commemorative sites and events like reenactments and museums. I also believe any US citizen has the right to display the Rebel Flag and wear merchandise related to it. Conversely, I believe that anyone displaying the Rebel Flag must expect that others will object to its presence while reacting to any such objections with civility and polite disagreement. Likewise, any objections to the Rebel Flag should also be both civil and legal and focus on the issue of African American slavery, not the presumed racism of Confederate fighting men or present-day Johnny Rebs.

4)  I do not believe the Rebel Flag belongs on any official federal, state or municipal flagpoles. In popular parlance, this means "flying over the capitol" or other federal, state of city buildings that posses a flagpole dedicated to the American flag. Nor do I feel the Rebel Flag should be displayed as commensurate or in any way equal to the American flag or any state flags. I feel likewise regarding any flag that specifically represents a particular identity or subculture in American society, e.g. various political banners, ethnic flags, rainbow flags, etc.

That being stated, let me address two responses to my previous blog post, one sent via email by a conservative friend and one addressed in a phone call by a longtime liberal friend.

Regarding the overall cause of the Civil War, my conservative friend advised me that state's rights did not just include the right to own slaves but also the longstanding battle over federal tariffs that favored the industrial Northern interests while slowly bankrupting the agrarian South. "I don't want to embarrass you," my friend wrote, "so I didn't post a public comment." He went on to make a case that federal abuses like the Morrill Tariff were the real cause of the war, not slavery. To this, I replied by maintaining my original position and further explaining that: "The first seven southern states that seceded did not do so over the tariff. They seceded upon the election of Lincoln, a presidential candidate that did even appear on the ballots of ten southern slave-holding states. The tariff situation, while certainly eviscerating to the economies of southern states, had existed for decades before the war. In fact, the Tariff previous to Morrill actually favored the South. Ultimately, the tariff battle was being waged in the halls of Congress, not the fields of Bull Run and Gettysburg."

In my response, I also brought up again that the seceding states didn't care much about states rights when it came to enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act (FSA), which required non-slave states to assist in the capture and return of escaped slaves to their owners. In this case, the future states of the CSA demanded strict and absolute adherence to federal law in Northern States like Wisconsin and Vermont that passed laws nullifying the FSA. At this time, I welcome his reply via email or comment here.

The phone call from my longtime liberal friend focused primarily on my support of the Rebel Flag and its "undeniably racist past." I was first informed that the designer of the Rebel Flag, William T. Thompson, specifically stated that it symbolized "Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race." (exact quote mine). I then asked my friend to research the quote further, as well as the flag under question. Thompson, (an unabashed racist, yes!) designed the second national flag of the CSA, the so-called "stainless banner," which did indeed incorporate the Northern Army of Virginia Battle Flag in its design. But anyone reading my previous post and following the link to an image of the "stainless banner" immediately sees that the Rebel Flag resides in the upper left hand corner of a field of pure white. It is this white field, in the exact words of Thompson, that symbolizes the "supremacy of the white man." He doesn't say anything regarding the red, white & blue iconography of Northern Army of Virginia Battle Flag that I can find. If someone can point me to an exact Thompson quote regarding the racist symbology of the Rebel Flag itself, I'll certainly reexamine my position on the inherent symbolic racism of the Rebel Flag.

Next my liberal friend equated the Rebel Flag with the Nazi Flag, which happens to be an argument I really wrestled over before finally forming my own opinion. I certainly respect the feelings of those who react to the Rebel Flag with the same abhorrence as the red, white and black Nazi swastika. I have African American friends and close relatives that will never see the Rebel Flag as anything but a revolting icon of hate. Considering that neo-nazis and hate groups have adopted the Rebel Flag for their own diseased agendas, I can fully understand someone loathing it without exception. Personally, however, I don't have this same reaction because I don't necessarily view Johnny Rebs (past and present) as promoting racism and genocide. I can't say the same for the degenerate scum festooned with Third Reich regalia, though. As much as I despise neo-nazis and other racist pos's, I also acknowledge their right to display their moronic symbols and spout their imbecilic crap as long as it's just speech and symbols.

Basically, if you take nothing away from these last two posts, please at least know this. I'm a free speech guy first and foremost. Repressing or outlawing any words or symbols as offensive or dangerous only gives these words and symbols the real power to become truly dangerous. The only antidotes to bad speech and repulsive symbols are better speech and more uplifting symbols. I welcome reasoned debate and civil discourse. Respectful disagreements promote understanding. Silence and seething resentment perpetuate ignorance.

Reenacting, Race & Raising the Rebel Flag

I'm not going to rehash the horrific tragedy that occurred on June 17 at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston. Nor am I going to delve into armchair pyscho-babble and try to analyze the morally and intellectually bankrupt actions of the shooter. Frankly, I care as little about his motive and mental state as I do about his continued existence upon our mortal plane. And, PLEASE NOTE that I'm deliberately not stating his name. I'll refer to him hereafter as the shooter. Yes, there's a part of me that would love to call him Garbage or Piece of Shit or Prison Rape Meat. But that would indicate that I even consider him worthy of my contempt. Frankly, he's a bug to me. The kind you step on and wipe off your shoe before you step away and try to do some good in the world.

So if I'm not here to fulminate about the shooting or the shooter, then what exactly am I addressing in this post? Well, to start with I'm going to try to add some perspective to the massacre's aftermath, specifically in regards to the flying of the Rebel Flag. I'll also try to answer some of the questions I've received in my inbox since the shooter's identity and photo album went public.

First off, let me just say something about the media coverage of this crime. What does it say about us that we allow our worst representatives to dominate news cycles and affect public policy while truly decent hardworking visionaries never even get five of their proverbial fifteen minutes of fame? Frankly, I don't know. I just think we should all reflect on that for a moment. Okay, then, let's move onto topic two: the Northern Army of Virginia Battle Flag.

NO, what people call the Confederate Flag was never the official national flag of the Confederate States of America (CSA). It was, in fact, Robert E. Lee's battle flag for the Northern Army of Virginia. (For those of you interested in Confederate Flags, Wikipedia has a fairly decent entry.) YES, the iconic blue X, white stars and red field were incorporated into two of the Confederacy's national flags, the so-called "stainless" and "blood-stained" banners. But the all-too familiar flag emblazoned on the roof of the Dukes of Hazzard's '69 Dodge Charger was never the flag of the CSA. It did, however, become the recognized symbol of the rebel armed forces during the Civil War. From here on out, then, I'll refer to it as the Rebel Flag.

After the war, the Rebel Flag still hung around, but was mostly displayed at historical sites and events commemorating the Civil War. Then, in the late 1940s and 50s, the flag reemerged in a political context, becoming the emblem of resurgent southern regionalism and, subsequently, resistance to federal authority, i.e. "them fat cats in Washington DC.". And here's where everything gets complicated, convoluted and controversial.

To keep it brief and overly simplistic, the field of US politics experienced a pole shift in the decades between World War II and the Reagan era of the 80s. Southern Democrats (aka Dixie Crats) suddenly found themselves uneasily aligned on the right wing with northern fiscal and social conservatives. African Americans, long affiliated with the classically liberal Republican Party of Lincoln, drifted into camp with the more radical and progressive wing of the Democratic Party. From all the ensuing sociopolitical upheaval, the Rebel Flag arose from the ashes of Margaret Mitchell's wistful and whimsical Lost Cause like the mythical phoenix.

Suddenly, what came to be seen as "The Confederate Flag" popped up on flagpoles - private and public - all over the fruited plain. For every Johnny Reb flying the flag to proclaim a heritage and identity distinct from us Billy Yanks, others displayed the same flag to promote segregation, racism, antisemitism and insurrection against our federal government. As a result, the Confederate Flag Controversy has flared up numerous times over the last thirty to forty years with defenders rallying around the flag's historical significance and cultural heritage while the opposition cites that same history and heritage as the fundamental reason for the flag's removal.

Honestly, I've looked at this situation from every possible angle, and I've concluded that taking any kind of  middle ground regarding the Rebel Flag is bound to piss off people on both sides. Coincidentally, this is exactly the situation faced by Chris Telamon, the protagonist in my forthcoming novel, Stalking Mule, a lifelong liberal who suddenly finds himself embedded with the Confederate army in what becomes a very real Civil War reenactment. So, with this in mind and against all better judgment, I guess I'll be pissing off both sides for the remainder of this post.

While I won't go so far as to say my perspective on the rebel flag is wholly unique, I will suggest that my recent experiences do allow me to see the issue from a rather idiosyncratic vantage point. For those of you who don't know me well, I'm literally all over the place as far as politics and social issues are concerned. My liberal friends see me as way too conservative, and my conservative friends see me as way too liberal. Case in point, my recent experiences as a Confederate soldier drilling and marching under the rebel flag with The 27th Virginia.

When I first started researching Stalking Mule, I tried my best at due diligence, I talked to some reenactors and started attending some local Civil War reenactments to internalize the flavor and personality of the events and the devoted volunteers who make them work. I introduced myself to a number of very polite and helpful reenactors on both sides and pumped them for as much information as I could politely obtain. Everyone I met loved talking about their passion, but - to be honest - I just couldn't seem to make the kind of connection necessary for the type of in-depth research the subject demanded. 

Then, at the annual Fremont, Ohio reenactment a few years back, I met a Confederate soldier and walking encyclopedia of living history named Phil Reynolds. Phil not only schooled me on some popular misconceptions many of us have regarding fighting men in the Civil War, he also enthusiastically took me under his wing and really showed me what the reenacting hobby is all about. The first thing he taught me, reenacting is much more than a hobby. For the dedicated souls who transform these events into living history, reenacting isn't dress-up, or play-acting. Their level of mental, physical and monetary commitment is equivalent to that of a dedicated amateur marathon runner, mountain climber or a Habitat For Humanity volunteer. I truly realized this when I started drilling with Phil's unit and took part in my first battle at the Painesville reenactment last summer.

For those who regularly read my blog, I recounted my experiences in several previous posts. So I won't repeat myself now. What I didn't write about last summer, however, was the reaction sparked by my enlistment in the Confederate forces. Upon seeing photos of me "fighting" beneath the Rebel Flag, my email inbox immediately filled with some challenging and, at times, disturbing questions: "Did you choose to be a Confederate?" Or "Why were you a Confederate? Are you a racist?" Just the kind of questions, I might add, that Chris Telamon - descendant of a prominent local liberal family involved in the Underground Railroad - must repeatedly address in the pages of Stalking Mule. In fact, once I got a hundred pages into the novel's first draft, I realized that the volatile relationship between Civil War reenacting and race relations in 21st-century America had quickly become one of the novel's central theme.

As I work now to complete Stalking Mule and White Picket Jungle, events in our world continue to dovetail with plot points contrived years ago in my fictional universe. By sheer creative happenstance, Stalking Mule has its own horrific hate crime eerily analogous to the massacre in Charleston, a murderous spree complete with internet photos and loud national conversations debating the cultural heritage of the American Civil War and its symbology in our popular culture. And draped over both worlds - real and reenacted, material and make-believe - is the battle flag of Robert E. Lee's Northern Army of Virginia. Its presence not only posing questions about our present-day Johnny Rebs but also their ancestors.

By now, anyone who's read this far is no doubt dying to ask me the hard questions. Do I think the Rebel Flag is racist? What about Confederate reenactors who display this flag or their forebears one-hundred-fifty years ago who did the same? Is any identification with the Confederate States of America inherently racist? Or can someone proudly display the Rebel Flag without at least believing somewhat in the tenets of white supremacy? Fully aware that I will now alienate my friends on both sides of this issue, let me try to give you my opinions as succinctly as possible.

Over the last one-hundred-fifty years, the Rebel Flag has come to represent the Confederate States of America. Despite never being the Confederacy's national flag, it was and still is the symbol of the southern cause in the Civil War. So what was the southern cause then?

The cause of the Confederate government during the Civil War was to establish a separate nation where slavery would remain the law of that land until said government chose to abolish it. Sorry to all my fellow rebel reenactors (if I'm still welcome after this article). But secession was born with the election of Abraham Lincoln and fermented in the belief that the radical Republicans would abolish slavery and destroy the southern economy and way of life. To say secession was over "state's rights" is sophistry at best and disingenuous at worst. Yes, the secessionist states believed in states rights, most notably a state's right to uphold the tradition of slavery despite any moves the federal government might make to dismantle the peculiar institution. However, those same secessionist states refused to recognize a state's right to refuse cooperation in the Fugitive Slave Act, which was still federal law when General P.G.T. Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter in 1861. That being said, the cause of the Confederate government was not necessarily identical to the cause of the individual Confederate soldiers.

Soldiers are peculiar lot. Despite the best efforts of the governments that put them in the field, soldiers don't put their lives on the line for governments or policies or the posturing of politicians. Some soldiers may take up arms under some sense of patriotism, but when the bullets start flying and the stomach starts growling they fight for themselves, their comrades in arms, their families, their homes and their own singular sense of duty. This goes for soldiers in any war - our Civil War, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. In the case of the average Confederate soldier, the staggering majority of whom neither owned slaves nor had any vested interest in the perpetuation of slavery, he didn't fight, kill and daily risk his life to keep African Americans in bondage. Frankly, with Federal troops invading his home, killing his friends and branding him a traitor, he had much more immediate and life-threatening issues to worry about than maintaining the slaveocracy.

Sorry to all my liberal friends who just really want to hate the Confederate soldiers and therefore rebel reenactors by default (if you still call me friend after this article.) If, for a moment,  you'd all just set aside the intellectual interpretations of what happened between Fort Sumter and Appomattox Courthouse and read the actual journals, letters and contemporary battlefield accounts written by the soldiers (and their loved ones) you might be surprised like I was. You won't find much (if anything at all) about white supremacy or hatred of African Americans in these missives. What you will find is hatred of the Federals and Billy Yanks who, until the first Colored and Negro troops were officially commissioned in 1863, were as white as the rebs.

Yes, Confederate soldiers were fighting for a government that wanted to preserve slavery, but I haven't read an account of even one Confederate officer rallying his cold, starving, out-manned and out-gunned troops by invoking the Cause of Slavery. Knowing how the soldiers looked upon the Rich Man's War and poor man's fight, I can't imagine such a pep talk would have met with anything but derision or worse. Confederate officers inspired their troops by appealing to their love of family, friends and homeland, not their government or its policies. Even a cursory reading of contemporary soldiers' opinions of Jefferson Davis and CSA government quickly reveals that, like all soldiers, Johnny Reb didn't have much use for the desk jockeys at the capitol. So, even if the Rebel Flag meant White Supremacy to the Confederate Government, my reading and research just won't allow me to paint the Confederate soldier with the same broad red, white and blue brush. And neither, for that matter, does my real life experience with rebel reenactors.

Are Confederate reenactors racists? I'm sure some are. Hell, racists can be found anywhere and in every walk of life. I will say this, though. I've had the privilege of drilling, bivouacking and fighting alongside rebel reenactors for over two years now, and I've yet to hear any of them say anything that strikes me as overtly or patently racist. Please note, I said me. I'm sure if some of my more liberal friends had been sitting around the same campfire, their feathers might have been suitably ruffled. Also be assured, if the Charleston shooter had decided to bring his brain-dead, racist crap into a camp of rebel reenactors, he would have found his white ass riding out of camp on a rail.

So what do I hear around these rebel campfires, then? Well, today's rebels are predominantly conservatives or libertarians. They long for tighter families, tighter communities and a renewed sense of national pride. Many are church going Christians. By and large, they reminisce wistfully over bygone eras while expressing a deep mistrust of big government and politicians of both major parties. Above all, they steadfastly defend of the common Confederate soldier as a patriot defending his home soil against Yankee aggression. If all this strikes anyone as encoded racism, then we obviously have different definitions of the word, and nothing anyone says will convince you otherwise. But honestly, I've heard much more offensive thoughts while bellied up to a bar with a stranger or standing in line at the DMV.

Do I agree with every sentiment and idea I hear around these rebel campfires? Of course not, and depending on my mood and comfort level I may even jump into a good-natured debate. As a writer, though, I tend to listen more than speak. I'm there to soak up language, cadence and perspective. My goal is to capture the reality of these individuals and let them speak in their own voices, not hear the sound of mine. So what kinds of things do I disagree with then?

For one, I find their almost uniform disparagement of all Union generals and troops as unabashedly partisan and sometimes humorous. I'm also wary of the Lost Cause revisionism that condemns Lincoln as a war criminal, downplays slavery as the cause of secession while over-emphasizing the role of slaves and freed blacks in the Confederate Army. And just for the record, African American men did indeed serve as teamsters and, in a few isolated cases, infantrymen with the rebel armies. However, these "black rebs" were a statistically insignificant exception, and their circumstances can hardly be used as evidence that slaves and freed blacks were treated with anything close to equality in the CSA armed forces. They weren't. Neither, for that matter, were African Americans treated well by the overwhelming majority of Union commanders or troops. (Just read about Sherman's views on race sometime. Eye opening to say the least.)

So where exactly does this put me on the issue of the Rebel Flag. (I bet you all thought I wasn't going to answer that, right?) Okay, here goes nothing.

I believe the Rebel Flag belongs at Civil War monuments and grave sites commemorating fallen American soldiers who fought for their friends, families, homes and sense of honor. I believe the Rebel Flag also belongs at reenactments, and if I ever have the honor of marching under it again, I will do so with pride and respect towards the brave real men who wore the uniform before me and sacrificed their lives for their families, friends and homes. I also believe if a private citizen wishes to display the Rebel Flag or carry Rebel Flag related merchandise, so be it. They should be prepared for backlash, however, and then react with civility and respect for the opinions of others. Conversely, I also believe that opponents and haters of the Rebel Flag have every right to be heard and educate the public as to their views provided they keep their fight legal, civil and aimed at the historical injustice of African American slavery, not the presumed racism of past or present Johnny Rebs.

That being said, I do not believe the Rebel Flag belongs on a federal, state or municipal flagpole with our American flag. Nor do I believe the Rebel Flag should ever be displayed in any way equal to or commensurate with our American flag. I hold these exact same beliefs for any flag that represents a specific group or subculture in our country whether I agree with their core values or not. We are one nation with one national flag that flies alone over all other flags just as our one nation stands above all the separate, distinct and ofttimes opposing groups that comprise its existence. It's called E Pluribus Unum, and I for one think it's the best thing going.