Last night, we received word of two considerable accomplishments. First, we won the ABA Journal’s selection as the top opinion blog. Second, we hit our 10 millionth viewer on the blog. We are routinely ranked as one of the most visited legal blogs by AVVO. As our viewership has grown in only a few short years, we have reached a wider and wider international audience.
What is particularly impressive is that 3 million of those viewers were in the last twelve months.
Again, I can only thank you for your friendship and your contributions on our blog. With our emphasis on civil liberties, it is heartening to see so many people from around the world visiting our blog. It is a wonderful reminder that we are not alone in our concern for individual rights and liberty.
Well done, everyone, and congratulations.
Um………….
Where did my finale go?
Hence, I post comments, from time to time, on the Top Legal Opinion Blog of 2011…
As an autistic and married transgendered person (male-to-eunuch), I have a serious personal interest in civil liberties. As a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, I have a professional ethical code mandate to hold paramount the public safety, to work in–and only in–areas of my professional competence, and to do those without deception.
The National Society of Professional Engineers’ Code of Ethics has an unqualified prohibition of the use of deception in the work of professional engineering, and, as a Professional Engineer working in the field of bioengineering, I have found it essential to have studied the nature of deception in formidable depth and detail.
Indeed, the nature of deception is an essential aspect of my doctoral dissertation (Mental Health and Mental Illness: Cause, Purpose, Cure, and Prevention; A Bioengineering Perspective — University of Illinois at Chicago [UIC], 1998). In my dissertation, I named the social mechanism which drives human personal and social deception, “The Fundamental Error of Social Reality.”
After my thesis committee had unanimously approved my dissertation, the then-acting head of Bioengineering at UIC unsuccessfully attempted to block my receiving my doctorate. As part of my overcoming the objections of that head of Bioengineering, I received a letter from a professional engineer, the former head of Bioengineering at UIC, Irving F. Miller, Ph.D. The text of that letter, originally on Office of the Dean, College of Engineering, The University of Akron, with unconditional permission from Dr. Miller to use as I deem wise and proper, reads thus:
{begin quote]
December 12, 1997
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing at the request of Mr. Brian Harris to describe the circumstances under which he returned to UIC in 1993 as a doctoral student in Bioengineering. At the time, I was Director of the Bioengineering Program, and it was my decision to readmit him.
When I met Brian in 1993, he was recovering from mental illness, nad he was ready to resume his studies. Since the work he had done prior to his illness was no longer available, he had to undertake a new dissertation topic. He presented me with an idea for a dissertation that I found to be original and intriguing. I believed then, and I believe now, that it is worth pursuing. However, I warned Brian at the time that he would need to convince skeptical people of its validity. Whether or not the topic was appropriate for Bioengineering was not an issue, because the ideal of modeling mental illness clearly fits, as Brian’s doctoral committee agreed.
My concern about Brian’s dissertation topic stemmed from the fact that it is such an original idea. Most dissertation topics are simple extensions of settled work, and would not arouse the concerns of the people who must judge the dissertation. In this case, success could be just as damaging as failure, because such success could undermine many established views.
I believed in 1993, and I believe now, that Brian should be allowed to complete his dissertation work. Although it has taken considerable time, four years is not too long for a doctoral dissertation, particularly considering the fact that Brian has handicaps that need some accommodation.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed)
Irving F. Miller
Professor and Dean
{end quote}
In the past, some of my postings regarding my research work and findings which I have posted on the Turley Blawg with the intent of being supportive of clearly, scientifically testable improvements to the structure and practice of law have, as best I can yet discern, been met with significant rejection from some blawg participants.
That such rejection was probable was unambiguously recognized by myself well before 1993, and was, as documented above, recognized by Dr. Miller when he readmitted me to the UIC Bioengineering Program.
It never occurred to me that, in challenging what I deem to be a foundational tenet of the structure of human social organization, my work would initially be welcomed by more than a tiny number of people.
I was a physic major at Carleton College for three years (1957-1960), before I transferred to study bioengineering at the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle in 1966. While at Carleton, one of my professors was Ian Barbour (who gave the Gifford Lectures and was awarded the Templeton Prize), then professor of physics and religion at Carleton.
I hold to the view that the relationship of science and religion has been modeled in four basic ways. 1. Science and religion are intrinsically in conflict. 1. Science and religion are independent of each other. 3. Science and religion have some common aspects. 4. Science and religion are actually a single, unitary scientific phenomenon.
I am a skeptical adherent of the fourth model, and am so because I observe that science, as a human activity, and religion, as a human activity, are both aspects of human brain activity; and are therefore both subject to intense scientific scrutiny by a qualified bioengineer. The same goes for any human activity; there can be no human activity which is not of human brain activity and therefore all human activity is properly studied by the methodologies of bioengineering.
And that takes me into studying the phenomenon of structure and function of human-made law from my perspective as a bioengineer. If I have studied the field of human-made law sufficiently as to have become competent in human-made law as it relates to bioengineering, then my Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer license not only entitles my studying human-made law as an aspect of human biology, the NSPE Code of Ethics mandates such studying as an aspect of holding paramount the public safety.
What on earth could ever have qualified me to ponder human-made law as a bioengineer? In 1965, I began work, with a joint appointment, as a technician at the University of Illinois and at Cook County Children’s Hospital. Dr. Bessie Lendrum, a pediatric cardiologist, had arranged for me to do that work, partly in support of her research interests. Dr. Lendrum was married to Sidney M. Perlstadt, a senior partner in the Sonnenschein, et al. law firm in Chicago. Dr. Lendrum and Mr. Perlstadt both lived on the north side of Chicago, as did I, and, most workdays, Sidney would take the CTA train from his place of work in the Loop to Cook County Children’s Hospital, and they would give me a ride to their home, where we had dinner together while talking together about many of our interests, both medical research issues as well as Sidney’s concerns about the nature and processes of law. Over a number of years, Sidney shared with me his understanding of many salient issues of the structure and function of human-made law.
For anyone who never came upon any of my prior Turley Blawg posted comments, I asked three “childlike” questions of close to 400 people for the field work aspect of my dissertation. Those questions were:
1. “Ever make mistakes?”
2. “Ever make a mistake you shouldn’t have made?”
3. “Ever make a mistake you could have avoided?”
All of those people answered, “Yes,” to question 1, and two percent (eight in number) answered “No,” to questions 2. and 3. While two percent is well below the conventional 0.05 significance level of frequentist statistical analysis, Bayesian methods need have no outliers worthy of being rejected. I used mainly Bayesian statistics in my research.
What led me to pursue the research I did? I am autistic, and am so much in the language-delay sense first described in detail by Dr. Leo Kanner. I have never experienced thought in the form of words. Furthermore, I have never experienced thought in the form of pictures, in contrast with Dr. Temple Grandin’s experience as described in her book, “Thinking in Pictures.”
When, at about 18 months of age, the conventional infant-child transition came my way, I categorically and absolutely rejected it, as I have done ever since. I have never been successfully taught to accept (or “believe in”) fault or blame or guilt or sin with respect to myself or anyone or anything else.
Given that, am I dangerously sociopathic? As best I can discern, not even slightly. What do I use instead of fault, blame, guilt and sin? Perhaps what I do is of the eternal Dao (or Tao); the eternal Dao that, as tradition has it, cannot be told.
Much as I reject, for scientific reasons, the tradition that the eternal Dao cannot be told, so I reject, for scientific reasons, the adversarial system of law and jurisprudence. Having rejected those, and many other human social traditions, what do I do instead? I tell the eternal Dao with my whole life, not only in actions, but also in words.
The eternal Dao (which I find is also that supposedly elusive Theory of Everything that seems to have eluded the best and brightest of physicists) is so simple that it seems to have been overlooked for the whole of human historical experience.
Put in words, what is a useful form of the eternal Dao (aka, the Theory of Everything)?
It is: “Whatever happens, as it happens, is necessary and sufficient.”
Believing in the falsehood of guilt is necessary and sufficient for eventually coming to understand, in scientifically verifiable depth and detail, that guilt is, and is only, a delusion.
As guilt can be shown, through a simple null hypothesis/alternate hypothesis experiment, to be only of delusion, the affective state of shame is a brain biology response to the delusion of guilt, or, if one prefers, shame is effectively a delusion detector; the brain’s response to the internalization of a falsehood.
The belief in guilt is, to me, of a religious tradition with which my actual life has no actual contact; so that, when an adversarial system court judge “finds me guilty” of something, that judge is imposing his religion on me in ways I find profoundly violate my constitutional civil rights.
What better to do than post my findings as a bioengineer regarding my finding my constitutional civil rights being violated than on the Top 2011 Legal Opinion Blog?
My life work is directed toward actually understanding human violence sufficiently well that it may become possible to deal effectively with the deepest biologically grounded cause of such violence, all the better to bring human violence to a timely end while not concurrently bringing humanity to an untimely end.
Hence, I post comments, from time to time, on the
I think OS said it all so I won’t go on (imagine that)
Congrats again Professor.
Congratulations, Professor Turley. Congratulations, as well, to all the guest contributors. Lights in the darkness, as I’ve said before… Thank you.
I knew we could do it!! Congratulations there, JT.
Congratulations, Prof. Turley, on a remarkable achievement. I have thoroughly enjoyed the insights and range of views of lawyers and non-lawyers alike on this site.
Today’s entries also answer a question I have frequently pondered, which is how you’ve found the time to nurture and develop this blog. Now that I have read the truth about the big pay and short hours enjoyed by law professors, it all becomes clear.
CONGRATS PROFESSOR!!
Congratulations Professor Turley and guest bloggers.
Incredible job.
My guess is that by June 30th, this blog will have
have had 15 million viewers easily…
Congratulations. Well deserved.
Congradulations…..good choice AN….
Professor, Your blawg seems to be suffering an onslaught of spam/ads in the last hour or so – Everybody loves a winner! 🙂
You did it, Prof. We just came along for the ride.
I’m uncharacteristically in awe and so greatful to you Jonathan for creating this haven from the inanity of much on the net that passes for discussion. It is your vision, wit and example that energizes us all.
OS: “The efforts here by our distinguished host and the brilliant writing of the guest bloggers is an inspiration.”
*****
Well said OS and I agree completely. Again Professor I extend (well deserved) congratulations to you, your blawg, and the most excellent choice of guest blawgers. Now Benjamin can say he’s a timely contributor to both an award winning blawg AND a blawg with 10 million hits! 3 milion hits for a personal blawg in 12 months is outstanding!
Does this mean I have to start putting on my makeup before typing?
By the way … I really miss the Sunday pictures from France. What happened to our wonderful photographer?
The sad part is that such a forum is even needed. The fact is, the need has never been greater and the fight must continue. This blawg is one of the key elements in carrying the message into the dark corners where light is needed so badly.
The efforts here by our distinguished host and the brilliant writing of the guest bloggers is an inspiration.
The comments and commenters make this place come alive with wit, humor and serious discussion. Whether I comment or not, I always learn something every time I stop in.
I want to echo Gene’s comment. What a double whammy of good news! Congratulations Professor!
Congratulations Professor Turley, folks obviously come here for the principled and well thought out posts.
However, something about hitting 10 million viewers reminds me of the school cafeteria…
“With our emphasis on civil liberties, it is heartening to see so many people from around the world visiting our blog. It is a wonderful reminder that we are not alone in our concern for individual rights and liberty.”
A good and noble message spreads doubly fast when the leaders in spreading that message deftly lead by example.
Congratulations, but the thanks must extend to you, Professor Turley, for providing and encouraging this wonderful forum.