Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Wingnut of the Day

Came across an alarming (yet somehow funny) article over at Preemptive Karma the other day, showcasing the latest, and looniest, entry in the Iraq blame game. A while back, Shelby Steele was arguing that the demise of "white supremacy" was to blame for the Iraq war going badly. Now we hear from one David R. Usher, described as "Legislative Analyst for the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition, And is a co-founder and past Secretary of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children", who explains that the Iraq war would be going great if it wasn't for those awful feminists:

Shelby’s theory is wrong. The collapse of white moral authority is not the problem. The replacement of male authority with feminism is. To Steele’s credit -- he was gazing in the general right direction – but missed the real target. In America, there is one place where white supremacy and radical feminism existed: The Ku Klux Klan.
Liberal feminists believe that all violence is bad (unless it happens to be committed by a woman). Tralfamadore is a pain-free, hypersexual village of serial polyandry, where sustenance and protection comes from government, somebody else raises your children, and men get charged for it all even if they weren’t the father.

As I said when writing about Steele, the right-wingers have finally realized things aren't going so hot in Iraq, and they're Desperately Seeking Scapegoats. I find it really curious how one wingnut after another is coming forward, each having discovered that the whole Iraq debacle is the fault of precisely the same group he'd made a career out of hating well before the war ever started. What a truly amazing series of coincidences! It's uncanny, I tell you. Before it's all over, we'll learn that the quagmire is the fault of absolutely everyone except conservative white males, who are absolutely blameless, of course. Even though the whole thing was their idea in the first place, and they planned and executed the thing. Because, you know, when you make a terrible, stupid mistake, it's all the fault of the people who tried to warn you from Day 1. Not because the critics were right, of course, because no Real Man ever admits he's screwed up, but because the critics weren't being supportive enough, and didn't get on board to be part of the disaster.

Usher's central thesis, so far as I'm able to discern it, is that feminism is preventing this country from unleashing the full force of our red-blooded manly-man savagery against the Iraqis. He's outraged, furious, even, that feminists seem to oppose society glorifying war and death above all other things. Well, I would certainly hope that was true.

If you're morbidly curious, here are a few of his other columns, defending Michael Jackson, and the Duke lacrosse team, and bashing Amnesty International (Apparently they're contributing to an extremely-well-hidden epidemic of women beating up men. Jeepers!) And then there's a piece that I think is supposed to be about Valentine's Day, although it's so hysterical it's hard to tell -- it's titled V-DAY: LATTER-DAY FEMINIST PROPHET OF BAAL SPEAK if that gives you any idea. And he argues that the decline in military enlistments is because greedy military wives get their kicks by divorcing their overseas husbands and sticking them with huge child support bills, repeating the process as necessarry. Naturally he doesn't identify a single instance where this actually happened. It's just one of those things he knows is true, because it feels true to him. It has a feel of truthiness about it. Usher also hates gay people, of course.

I was about to make a cheap shot about his personal appearance, and how he's just upset that no woman will have anything to do with an ugly, scrawny little guy with an unconvincing combover and a bad attitude. But then I came across this FindLaw page about his ugly divorce and custody battles. Divorced in 1988, still fighting as of 2000. Oh, and here's a page from the Missouri Supreme Court about the case as well. From that page:

The trial court decided properly because no sufficient change in the circumstances of Mother or the children required it to award custody to Father to protect the best interests of the children.(FN20) It found the children suffered significant medical and psychological problems that were not caused by Mother's parenting and that Mother successfully addressed these problems. Mother secured counseling and drug treatment, enrolled M.U. in a residential treatment facility, and even moved closer to school to help M.U. attend. The evidence showed these efforts improved the psychological and academic well being of the children. The trial court also found Father was more insensitive to the fact that M.U.'s problems were medical and viewed them as predominately disciplinary in nature. It also found he did not adequately respond to Mother's request for help caring for the needs of the children by failing to attend school conferences and pay his share of medical expenses. It also concluded the children's best interests were better served by Mother because of the poor relationship between the children and their stepmother, Father's current wife.
The order requiring Father to pay the GAL and Mother's attorney fees is justified under both parts of section 452.355. Under 452.355.1, the trial court considered Father's statement of income and expenses and found he was financially able to pay the fees. It also chastised Father's motion to modify as "entirely without merit" and merely a retort to Mother's request for Father to assist her in addressing the educational problems of M.U. The order of the trial court was also justified under section 452.355.2 because Father owed Mother back payments for medical and hospitalization costs she incurred on behalf of the children.
This Court will reverse an award of GAL and attorney fees only for abuse of discretion, and Father does not show abuse.(FN21) For instance, he does not contest he owed back payments for support or that he was financially able to pay Mother's fees. Father merely restates his arguments that the overall judgment of the trial court was erroneous and his motion to modify custody should have been granted.

Yep, folks, we have a real winner here. The state supreme court wouldn't step in to soothe his fragile male ego, but maybe the military can do the job, and slaughter us a bunch of Iraqis, just to show the womenfolk who's the real boss around these parts. Sure, untold thousands of people have to die in the process, but that's a small price to pay for repairing one angry wingnut's damaged self-esteem, after all. (What, you don't agree? Why do you hate freedom!?)


No comments :