Though I am new to Mr. Walsh and to the apparent disagreement you and he have had over the recent past, I nonetheless thought your response to him in the matter of what "dispassionate" means and why it might be, in circumstance such as these, thought a virtue was spot on and pitch perfect. IMHO, well done.
The word “defense” has different meanings. Michael has not been “defending” her actions. He has been establishing the basis of a legal “defense,” the facts and legal theory with which one would conclude that she is not criminally liable, but, instead, legally insane.
The point is that in this context, the meaning of the word “defense” and legal context is being perverted. It is no sense analogous to the typical use of the word “defense,” which would be used for actions that are in some sense justifiable, could be repeated without objection.
That's right. Everyone who's been raging with such fury lately at the people they condemn for "defending," "excusing," or "supporting" Lindsay Clancy are using those words as synonyms, speciously, for "justifying." And farming cheap outrage on that specious basis.
Junior high school. First semester. Beautiful young woman full of love for life. Sunday morning her older brother goes upstairs to find the young woman in her bed. She is dead. Their mother went into the room early that morning. She took a pillow and covered her daughters face with it. The mother continued to press down on her daughters face as the daughter fought for her life. The mother prevailed. Mom believed the daughter was too good for this world so she killed her. [A friend remembers the mother tried to enlist the oldest son to help her kill his two brothers too. Can't say.]
Of course the mother was "insane", for what sane person would kill their child? Apparently juries have found it is possible. Fathers I believe. In this particular instance mom was not found guilty. She spent a little time in a facility. Very little. It seems with her daughter dead, the proximate object of the mother's insanity was miraculously gone. [Sons?] Mom was released. A few years after the murder, another friend's parents were in a town 3-hours away. They attended a cocktail party and saw the mom at the party.
Something is ABSOLUTELY wrong if you can kill someone(s) with your own hands, claim insanity because of that someone(s) and once they are dead you have a short ride to release and a cocktail party. Oh, and her husband divorced her 2-years earlier. There is your 'post-partum' excuse.
The only dispassionate one in all of this was Lyndsey Clancy as she systematically sent her husband out on errands just long enough to strangle her 3 children. Nothing about her behavior fits anything typical of psychosis, according to the Norwegian psychiatrist, Hannah Spier, MD. She believes an entirely new definition of psychosis for the category "post partem psychosis" has been dreamed up to explain away the possibility of the woman being a psychopath. Nearly half of the filicides committed are committed by women. It's not the US healthcare system, it's not a random male voice, it's not some new psychosis, that unlike any other psychosis, comes and goes from hour to hour. Women throughout history have killed, and judging from the copycat killer this weekend, Corie Walsh, they will keep on killing. We don't need to keep making up defenses for them.
Good Job, Mr. Tracey. I've admired your writing/reporting for quite awhile now - ever since I read your history of Americans' anit-interventionism preceeding WWII. That was a response to a Vicious attack by a leftist. When younger I devoted what was probably too much time to the problems of L. Celine and Wyndham Lewis (and talk about being "unable to read the room" - Lewis entitled his 1939 anit-hitler defense of the jews, (a couragous work, considering he announced to the world that he was completely mistaken in his previous six years of political analysis) "The jews - Are They Human?") and anyone who might dare to practice irony in politically unstable times. Not that you are a particularly great ironist. Like myself, it seems you lean more towards bombastic sarcasm overkill. And why not? These people are disgusting. You know you're doing good when you've made enemies on all sides. It can be a lonely place, though. You have my support, for what it's worth.
Tracey is just never going to get it. Rote contrarianism isn’t interesting or appealing. I think it’s why Taibbi shelved their podcast after Tracey took a ridiculous, indefensible position on russiagate.
Ironic that MT would go on this screed about moral -instead of evidential- indignation over Clancy. Bro have you taken a look at the people defending her? They’re emotional lunatics and her defense team leaned into that anti-logic!
Michael has not once defended a killer. He has been doing exactly what we claim our justice system is supposed to do, among other things is the presumption of innocence no matter how vile the crime; and to channel the emotion: "does your 'feeling' change what the evidence and law require"? I do not want to live in a society where blood lust and blind rage become all that is necessary to determine guilt or innocence.
I am reading into the legal difficulties that mothers face if they wish to relinquish custody of their children beyond the stage of newborn.
Surely, we could use some change in the law and programs to allow mothers who are unfit to raise children to more easily pass their children to others after the newborn stage.
But it will be better if some mothers who are unfit to raise children can more easily pass them to others. If Lindsay Clancy did so, it would not made her sane, but it'd save her children.
It may be that you should not have let yourself been baited, but... it is a response worth reading. Of course, it will be completely wasted on Walsh, who seems to be one of the brightest examples of de-evolution in the digital age. But it is good to read for the rest of us, who will never be reminded often enough of that little byproduct of the evolution of Homo sapiens called "reason".
"Parker, ya know, you don't let feelings get in the way. You rotate problems - security, people, timelines - you spin them in 3 dimensional space, like puzzle pieces until they click. It's not the way I think, but... I trust your judgment. I really do."
Though I am new to Mr. Walsh and to the apparent disagreement you and he have had over the recent past, I nonetheless thought your response to him in the matter of what "dispassionate" means and why it might be, in circumstance such as these, thought a virtue was spot on and pitch perfect. IMHO, well done.
The word “defense” has different meanings. Michael has not been “defending” her actions. He has been establishing the basis of a legal “defense,” the facts and legal theory with which one would conclude that she is not criminally liable, but, instead, legally insane.
The point is that in this context, the meaning of the word “defense” and legal context is being perverted. It is no sense analogous to the typical use of the word “defense,” which would be used for actions that are in some sense justifiable, could be repeated without objection.
That's right. Everyone who's been raging with such fury lately at the people they condemn for "defending," "excusing," or "supporting" Lindsay Clancy are using those words as synonyms, speciously, for "justifying." And farming cheap outrage on that specious basis.
Take Walsh down
Thank you for that last paragraph LOL! He and plenty of other "manly men" (some with beards!!) are acting like stereotypical women.
Junior high school. First semester. Beautiful young woman full of love for life. Sunday morning her older brother goes upstairs to find the young woman in her bed. She is dead. Their mother went into the room early that morning. She took a pillow and covered her daughters face with it. The mother continued to press down on her daughters face as the daughter fought for her life. The mother prevailed. Mom believed the daughter was too good for this world so she killed her. [A friend remembers the mother tried to enlist the oldest son to help her kill his two brothers too. Can't say.]
Of course the mother was "insane", for what sane person would kill their child? Apparently juries have found it is possible. Fathers I believe. In this particular instance mom was not found guilty. She spent a little time in a facility. Very little. It seems with her daughter dead, the proximate object of the mother's insanity was miraculously gone. [Sons?] Mom was released. A few years after the murder, another friend's parents were in a town 3-hours away. They attended a cocktail party and saw the mom at the party.
Something is ABSOLUTELY wrong if you can kill someone(s) with your own hands, claim insanity because of that someone(s) and once they are dead you have a short ride to release and a cocktail party. Oh, and her husband divorced her 2-years earlier. There is your 'post-partum' excuse.
Both things can be true, right? Lindsay Clancy deserves a prison sentence AND the prosecutors are blowhards?
The only dispassionate one in all of this was Lyndsey Clancy as she systematically sent her husband out on errands just long enough to strangle her 3 children. Nothing about her behavior fits anything typical of psychosis, according to the Norwegian psychiatrist, Hannah Spier, MD. She believes an entirely new definition of psychosis for the category "post partem psychosis" has been dreamed up to explain away the possibility of the woman being a psychopath. Nearly half of the filicides committed are committed by women. It's not the US healthcare system, it's not a random male voice, it's not some new psychosis, that unlike any other psychosis, comes and goes from hour to hour. Women throughout history have killed, and judging from the copycat killer this weekend, Corie Walsh, they will keep on killing. We don't need to keep making up defenses for them.
https://youtu.be/d8xzVrlLpWU?is=5zp-ufLDLryo8VaN
Good Job, Mr. Tracey. I've admired your writing/reporting for quite awhile now - ever since I read your history of Americans' anit-interventionism preceeding WWII. That was a response to a Vicious attack by a leftist. When younger I devoted what was probably too much time to the problems of L. Celine and Wyndham Lewis (and talk about being "unable to read the room" - Lewis entitled his 1939 anit-hitler defense of the jews, (a couragous work, considering he announced to the world that he was completely mistaken in his previous six years of political analysis) "The jews - Are They Human?") and anyone who might dare to practice irony in politically unstable times. Not that you are a particularly great ironist. Like myself, it seems you lean more towards bombastic sarcasm overkill. And why not? These people are disgusting. You know you're doing good when you've made enemies on all sides. It can be a lonely place, though. You have my support, for what it's worth.
Tracey is just never going to get it. Rote contrarianism isn’t interesting or appealing. I think it’s why Taibbi shelved their podcast after Tracey took a ridiculous, indefensible position on russiagate.
Ironic that MT would go on this screed about moral -instead of evidential- indignation over Clancy. Bro have you taken a look at the people defending her? They’re emotional lunatics and her defense team leaned into that anti-logic!
The kookiness of Clancy’s defenders isn’t very “evidential” as to her guilt or innocence
Neither is Walsh's, which gets to the question of "What the hell is the point Tracey is even getting at here?" IMO: dumb, contrarian rage-bait.
Matt is correct on his main point. Michael has been defending a killer instead of being concerned about three dead children.
Michael has not once defended a killer. He has been doing exactly what we claim our justice system is supposed to do, among other things is the presumption of innocence no matter how vile the crime; and to channel the emotion: "does your 'feeling' change what the evidence and law require"? I do not want to live in a society where blood lust and blind rage become all that is necessary to determine guilt or innocence.
Your statement is idiotic.
Oh good, the bot is here with a rebuttal.🙄
Still idiotic
I am reading into the legal difficulties that mothers face if they wish to relinquish custody of their children beyond the stage of newborn.
Surely, we could use some change in the law and programs to allow mothers who are unfit to raise children to more easily pass their children to others after the newborn stage.
So that is what you are going with? Society killed the kids? Really?
No, of course.
But it will be better if some mothers who are unfit to raise children can more easily pass them to others. If Lindsay Clancy did so, it would not made her sane, but it'd save her children.
Bruh
🤭
This would be a more powerful retort to Walsh coming from someone who generally exhibited more capacity for dispassionate analysis than Tracey.
It may be that you should not have let yourself been baited, but... it is a response worth reading. Of course, it will be completely wasted on Walsh, who seems to be one of the brightest examples of de-evolution in the digital age. But it is good to read for the rest of us, who will never be reminded often enough of that little byproduct of the evolution of Homo sapiens called "reason".
I stopped reading after the 5th or 6th paragraph of you emoting and providing zero reasoning. (See how you can say the same thing with fewer words?)
"Parker, ya know, you don't let feelings get in the way. You rotate problems - security, people, timelines - you spin them in 3 dimensional space, like puzzle pieces until they click. It's not the way I think, but... I trust your judgment. I really do."
https://x.com/DouglasCar26374/status/2016621651748671940?s=20