4 ms·
This sounds indeed defamatory and Linus was once again too impulsive. Not sure if the target will be as complaisant as his other victims. However the situation
by chmike 14y ago
This sounds indeed defamatory and Linus was once again too impulsive. Not sure if the target will be as complaisant as his other victims.
However the situation is indeed very shocking and Carmen Oritz's public reaction is also in my view extremely disappointing and shocking.
Apparently all this was an attempt to use a "big mistake" [1] of Aaron as a leverage for her self promotion with political goals and it backfired in a way she didn't anticipate.
This demonstrate to the whole world the internal "corruption" of the American justice system. Apparently there is no shame about it and no intent to change it. Probably too many influent people profit by various indirect leverages from this "state of art" and money is probably not the least of them.
Her childish response and pseudo justification it's not my fault, I didn't do anything wrong is appalling from a person with such high responsibility.
A more appropriate response is the one from the MIT director: what happened is a catastrophe and wrong because it should not have happened, we start an investigation to clarify our role in it, what we may have done wrong, what we can do to avoid that this happen again and we will make the conclusion public.
In her public comment Carmen Ortiz demonstrate her lack of honesty, objectivity and sense of justice and in short intelligence. Unfortunately it seam that people can get along with the claim she made by the benefit of complaisance of other mediocre people. Mediocracy: +1, Democracy : -1
[1] It is suggested it was a conscious disobedience meant to be a provocative political act to draw attention on a society problem without intent to harm anybody or for selfish interests like money or a political self promotion
- jacquesm 14y agoI think Ortiz is painfully aware that any words she says will be parsed extremely carefully and that if she so much as leaves a tiny surface with grip on it that surface will be eventually found and used to hit her as hard as the situation allows. Any admission, any implicit acceptance of responsibility, even a moral one could come back to haunt her in a possible civil suit. She's already fighting that battle today, even though the first shot may never be fired. To do otherwise would be morally honorable but from a legal point extremely bad strategy. This is the world we have all crafted and Ortiz is still in gameplay mode. If she could accept her own responsibility in this she'd likely never have made it to the position she is in, weaseling through cracks to avoid culpability is second nature in politics.
- chmike 14y agoAgree and thank you for clarifying this. These thoughts made me conscious of the difference in the "truth seeking process" of science and justice. In science, there is a natural and strong incentive to be objective and honest (cf. MIT's open comment on Aaron's death). Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be the case in the justice system regardless of the country. Why is that ? Could it be because the justice actors are considered not accountable for their "errors", because there is no credibility karma in play like in science, because a final decision must be made in a fixed time frame even if it can't be made on the "real truth" ? The justice system looks so middle age compared to science. And I already think in frustration that there is still plenty of room to make science more efficient in its truth seeking process. Lowering access barrier to scientific research knowledge is one of them !