History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Rebunk is pleased to announce the addition of a new blogger. I feel a bit like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz – we went off looking far and wide for new bloggers, and our first new addition comes from my hometown of Newport, New Hampshire. Richard and I first met when I was a junior in high school and he was a precocious 6th grader who was talented enough at the trumpet to play in the high school jazz band. I sort of took him under my wing a bit, or at least protected him from bullies.
Fast forward a few years. In the summer of 1993 I was an intern at St. Paul’s School’s Advanced Studies Program, a summer program for New Hampshire’s 200 best rising public school seniors. I had attended the program in 1988, and in 1993 Richard was one of Newport’s few representatives. I was the intern for the course in Law & Government and was a house supervisor in Center Upper (Center Upper Kicks Ass! As I recall.) Richard was both in my class and in the house. Since the classes were very intense, meeting for about 20 hours in class a week over six weeks, plus for many more hours in the libraries and elsewhere as they worked on various projects, and given that we also lived together in a dorm and interns were responsible for administering sports and other extracurriculars, it was a pretty intense summer. Indeed, my summers at St. Paul’s easily are the best and most important in my life, as I know 1993 was for Richard. We became close then, and after the summer started to become friends.
In addition to being a musician and scholar, Richard was one of the best high school football players in New Hampshire (he was also an All State basketball and track star as I recall) and he ended up attending Ohio Wesleyan on academic scholarships. He played football at OWU and one week he broke the school’s single game rushing record. Of course within two weeks a teammate shattered that record, but no matter. This was when I was at Ohio University, and Richard and I remained fast friends, spending a number of weekends together including a couple of very interesting ones involving parking meters, the “Nibsy Shuffle” and a tussle with a local in a state of confinement. The less said about this the better.
Richard graduated cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan with a degree in Political Science. He was a four year football letterman and was team captain his senior year, he made the requisite honor societies, and though it is now foggy, I believe he might have been in a fraternity and it might have liked beer.
Richard moved on to the University of Maine’s law School in Portland where he once again shined doing all the stuff that a good law student does – Moot Court Board, Legal Writing Instructor – and yet according to rumor spent as much time at Sugarloaf as in class his last semester. Ahhh, law school.
Since joining the Mello law firm in the beautiful city of Burlington, Vermont, Richard has successfully argued two cases before the Vermont Supreme Court. He has a case pending, Estate of Nicholas Gage v. State of Vermont where his firm represents the estate of a teenage plaintiff who was killed with 3 of his friends as a result of the State Agency of Transportation's alleged failure to adequately maintain the right of way along I-91. The case has been briefed and argued and is pending decision.
Rich has his own blog, Slice of Life which is on Rebunk’s blogroll. Politically, Richard is a one-time ardent conservative-turned libertarian, further diversifying the Rebunk ideological foundation (and further isolating the blog’s founder!). And just to show that Rebunk really does welcome just about any damned fool ideas, Richard is a fan of the New York Yankees. God help us all.
We know you’ll enjoy what Richard brings to the table. He is a dear friend. And he is one of us now.
Say it, Richard. No need to hold anything back here.
chris l pettit -
2/1/2005
No attack against you at all...actually read the Bill and Ted post.
TO start off on an interesting note, I was actually criticising US law schools for their overly positivistic approach to law. Unless one takes a jurisprudence or legal theory course (neither of which were required at UF), one would never know that there was a shcool of thought outside of Austin, HLA Hart, and Kelsen (if they know those names). In addition...why is law school taught as a trade school...as if there is no theory or philosophy? Granted these criticisms may only apply to the law schools I am familiar with (U of Florida...my alma mater, Harvard, UGA, the other big Florida schools, George Washington, American, etc) and there are exceptions (Berkeley, Colorado-Boulder, Lewis and Clark)...but overall the culture seems to be that of teaching black and whites and not realising that there are many shades of gray.
Law schools I have dealt with are in their little ivory towers as a result of positivism...there is a thought that law can be separated from morality even though social movements, history, and culture is where law originates!! It is ridiculous. it is this culture of ignorance and intolerance that gives us individuals such as Gonzales or Yoo who atre not lawyers at all, but ideologists and political hacks. THey have learned to figure out how to get around the law and talk around the topics instead of applying law and interpreting law to protect the individual and humanity as a collective. i remember in jury selection...we were taught to pick the whitest, least educated, most impressionable, lower to middle class jury imaginable so that the case could turn into an oratorical contest between the attorneys. is this how law is supposed to be applied? Black and corporate members were of course to be struck depending upon whether you were the prosecution or defense. THis is why the American law system is in shambals and is one of the most disreputable systems in the world today. Do you realise that a great deal of international law decisions now contradict American law? The South African Constitutional Court (the best in the world, in this lawyers opinion) has taken time to tear apart the atrocious reasoning of the US courts in several decisions (gay marriage, right to health care, death penalty, minority rights, etc.)
Just to start the thought...
CP
chris l pettit -
2/1/2005
Gawd I love George Carlin...
We can even figure out when you guys are being the good Rich and DC and when the evil robot Rich and DC show up...
CP
Derek Charles Catsam -
1/31/2005
Tee hee. And all this on a blog by historians. QWhat would So-Craytes think?
dc
Tom Bruscino -
1/31/2005
Steve and I are every bit as hot as the princesses.
Derek Charles Catsam -
1/31/2005
Most Excellent! My clever references are not futile!
dc
chris l pettit -
1/31/2005
I am really thrilled to have Rich around...I really enjoy debate over jurisprudence, legal theory, and case law with someone who truly knows their stuff. I am curious to see what classes RIch had in jurisprudence and legal theory, who his profs were, and what schools of thought he follows.
Rich...I would never and will never attack credentials...you know as well as I that law school is what you make of it, and one could go to Nova and still come out a great attorney. Coincidentally, I am sure we both know more "C" lawyers who are brilliant guys and gals than "A" lawyers who would fit into that group. I actually greatly look forward to some nice chats about law school, the profs, the alcoholics and druggies (profs and students), the silliness of running it like a trade school, the strange categories of students, etc.
I was chuckling at the title of the post by DC...I could not help but think of Bill S Preston Esq and Ted Theodore Logan, better known as Wyld Stallions. Could you and DC be Richard "?" Holmes and DC Derek Catsam, better known as Hystorical Rebunkers? THis is all in fun, of course...just trying to think of a cool rock band that you guys could incorporate (although I doubt Steve and Tom are as hot as the two princesses...hahaha)
Anyway...look forward to chatting and it is great to have another legal mind around...
There you go again. Enjoy the curse of Pedro for the rest of your existence.
+Rich
Derek Charles Catsam -
1/30/2005
Rich --
Worse yet, Chris is an internatrional lawyetr, but one with the unfortunate view that only hsi conception of the law is valid.
And every time he writes but does not want to comment on the points at hand he'll go off on a tirade against poasitivism. I think positivists stole his lolly when he was just a wee tyke.
The funny thing is, like theorists all over the world in whatever discipline, Chris apparently is unaware that most of us do not construct our view of the world based on some abstract theoretical dross, but rather on evidence, analysis, and a dollop of values.
Though most good people do distrust lawyers . . . never mind lawyer Yankee fans.
dc
Rich Holmes -
1/30/2005
Chris-
It seems that with your first comment to me you have learned the Rebunk creed, if you did not already know it before: An attack against one, is an attack against all.
(Okay, I know, enough with this language. But c'mon, we are on elevated alert after all. Yellow.)
What I couldn't figure out Chris is if you were mocking me, law students in general, the legal profession, the Rebunk authors, or some combination of the aforementioned. If you were mocking me, that is unfortunate, as the only thing you really know about me is what Derek wrote a couple days ago in introducing me to the Rebunk community. Either way, it's water off a duck's back as far as I'm concerned. If I had any concern whatsoever respecting what total strangers thought about me based solely on what I do for a living, well, I highly doubt I would have become an attorney. If you were mocking law students in general, that also is unfortunate. I've learned from my experiences both as a student and legal writing instructor that the altruistic beliefs that students initially bring to the classroom, while unrealistic in some circumstances, are refreshing and ultimately a good start to changing the overall image and attitude of the profession. If you were mocking the legal profession, well, what can I say other than you've got so much more better material to work with. At least make me laugh next time. There are some high quality jokes out there I bet you haven't heard, but I'd be happy to share them with you. If you were mocking the Rebunk authors, I would think there might be a better thread or post that you could have chosen to do it. And once our good friends in Poland get word of your remarks, well, may god have mercy upon your soul.
This being said, I hope you don't come away with the impression that I am angry or am now going to make it my mission to rip apart any comment you post here or mock you, as you seem to have done to me. Not at all. I hope to learn something from everything that is posted here (this includes you) and, in turn, hope to provide some insight through my own posts and comments. Hear me out. Don't you think it would be interesting to hear what a Libertarian trial attorney who whole-heartedly supports tort reform as well as the war in Iraq has to say before arbitrarily tagging him as uninformed? (Or, apparently in an attempt to cover my days as a student traffic guard in elementary school, "uniformed.")
+Rich
Rich Holmes -
1/30/2005
Thanks very much, Steve. I anticipate I'll be taking Derek down to Chinatown in no time. Best wishes.
-Rich
Steven Heise -
1/30/2005
Greetings Esquire Holmes. Welcome to the Rebunk community at large, and good luck keeping up with Derek's number of posts.
Steve
E. Simon -
1/29/2005
The "no rebuttal" thing has been obvious to me for quite some time, actually. I think for some reason I was one of the first to elicit that from him. But maybe the silence shows how he never took the time to construct the originating thoughts intelligently. Perhaps the contributions have been reduced to single-line outbursts because he knows he can't get far on logical grounds and will only extend his own metaphorical self-mortification if he does so. Maybe that's a sign of learning.
On the other hand, it opens the door for more humor. I'd say getting 11 decent ripostes off of a few silly and clumsy (and canned) lines is a pretty efficient format. I can't think of a more entertaining way (and perhaps even a more humane way?) to deal with a blog-troll relationship than one with a resident George Costanza sans reasoning or a Cliff Clavin without the slow rejoinders. How successful could "All in the Family" have been without Archie Bunker - who, while backward and somewhat bigoted, we all loved regardless? Or the characters on the Simpsons? Even South Park revels in more than a few characters with few virtues, although it reserves the majority of these for single-episode guests or associated phenomena (given the non-humanoid nature of many of South Park's "characters"), that leave town as soon as they come in.
I guess the teaching of literature should evolve to accomodate the way that non-traditional literary formats have really become better equipped to teach us some of the deeper truths about life and its lessons. Maybe that's the productive, non-Chris-oriented aside to which this post has brought me. Or maybe Jon Stewart is right, perhaps there is no use in separating information from entertainment.
Derek Charles Catsam -
1/29/2005
I love to see the preemptive dismissal of a guy who has not yet posted on Rebunk and who has won two cases before the Vermont Supreme Court.
Does anyone also note that Chris never, ever, ever engages with what has actually been written (except the sports stuff, he's decent on that front)? He argues about whatever it is that he wants which makes engagement really tedious. Look at the Europs and Bush post -- does he engage one tiny bit with what i or Friedman actually say? No -- his lines are so canned I expect to open them up to make a sauce. And then it is all of us who are closed minded, even though we cover a huge swath of interests and we all buck our parties or supposed ideologies in innumerable ways.
I'm not certain where he feels he has earned the right to denigrate our views over here. I certainly have no idea where he gets off denigrating Rich's views on law through supposition or my views on international affairs. And no matter how he denies, it is insulting, and he has not earned that right.
dc
E. Simon -
1/29/2005
Chris, if you can't indulge in even a mere attempt at basic courtesy out of self-interest (which begs the question: if no one else was interested in your well-being, your participation, your existence on this planet, what have you, by what reasoning would you continue in maintaining those pursuits other than out of self-interest?), then what about for Mr. Holmes' sake? In what way would it benefit him to entertain your insults towards the blog's founders? Doesn't anything in life have a point other than your one single over-riding goal of, of,... whatever it is that you're trying to do? Don't you put yourself at risk of being just as closed-minded as you claim everyone else to be toward your predisposition?
If you decide to answer, might I just remind you that at various points you've explicitly berated every field of interest and inquiry from religion to science(!), and as we can induce from Thursday's entries, political science and speech itself. I'm curious as what form of knowledge you would deem acceptable to engage and how adamantly decreeing an ever-elongating list of what's not befitting for consideration makes you anything other than an exercise in self-parody.
Whatever Mr. Holmes' views are, it seems reasonable to believe that he will probably make intelligent and interesting contributions. It seems a bit "selfish" to me for you to step in and demand - practically before he gets the chance to say anything - that they also be to your liking. But again, from Thursday, it's obvious that when that's your only consideration, the rest of us can make lemonade out your sour lemons and get a good rousing laugh out if it as well. So if you want to relegate yourself to nothing more than an object of comic relief, in the spirit of such unwittingly self-deprecating and somewhat self-destructive sidekicks ranging from Eddie Haskell, to Sideshow Bob, George Castanza, Cliff Clavin, (give me a day and I'll compile a list) then it looks like the Rebunkers will be more than willing and able to help you achieve your wish.
chris l pettit -
1/29/2005
These guys need a lot of fixing, Rich...
Maybe you can help keep them in line...
Although I am interested to see if you are like most students I remember from law school...hopelessly positivistic (even if you call yourself a realist), hopelessly uniformed on international law except from a "how does it suit the US" ideology, and hopelessly uniformed about legal systems outside our own. My guess is that, being a Rebunker you will not be, but I have heard a lot of boneheaded comments from DC, Steve and Tom and would not be surprised either way...
