Saturday, July 12, 2008

I Am An Elitist

"We've traveled the world, we've known Kings, we've known Princes, discoursed with scholars, and reasoned with fools." ~ Unknown (Scottish folk song)

It has recently been suggested to me that I keep a dictionary handy, presumably so I can use it to look up the word "compunction". The author of that comment apparently assumes, for whatever reason, that I am not as erudite as he. Perhaps it's because I prefer to keep my writing style simple enough so that readers like he cannot misunderstand the intent of my elucidation. I don't content myself to merely imply that I think the aforementioned commenter is a hypocritical jerk.

I prefer to make it quite clear that I think he is a hypocritical jerk.

Furthermore, he goes on to state, curiously, and at great length, that he doesn't really care what I think, to which another commenter pointed out that he certainly goes to no small amount of effort to impress someone he doesn't really care about impressing.

I have to admit I found that exchange amusing.

Perhaps some background behind the exchange of ad hominen attacks on each other is warranted here. The commenter, who's name (his initials are GK-S) shall not be revealed in this entry, remarked that he was celebrating the fact that the late Senator Jesse Helms was now, as he put it, "worm food". He didn't explain why he thinks Mr. Helms was such a deplorable person that he would deserve such disrespect, but I feel it only fair to point out the fact that Jesse Helms is not in any way "worm food", now or ever. Jesse Helms is in spirit form, wherever he now resides. The only thing remaining of Senator Helms that is "worm food" is the vehicle which carried his eternal soul around on this earth. And that vehicle was created by Helm's Creator to be disposable.

As is mine. As is Mr. GK-S's.

Let me state for the record that no dictionary was required. I am quite familiar with the word "compunction" but I never use it myself, primarily because I find the word sounds like it should have an entirely different meaning. Don't ask me to explain why. It just sounds to me, on intonation, rather coarse and vulgar. There is no sound reason why I feel that way. I just don't feel a compunction to use the word.

Heh Heh.

Be that as it may, I will admit that this naked intent to offend me had its desired effect, because I was duly insulted.

I'm funny that way. I get insulted over the most trivial of slights while casually brushing aside much stronger verbal assaults. If I am called ugly, I laugh. If I am called simple, I shrug. Call me an elitist if you will and I will not disagree, although I myself will use that word often to describe and denigrate those who I consider to be lemming mentality bleeding heart liberal sob sisters.

Of course, when I use the word "elitist" to describe a Liberal, I use it with a negative connotation. When I apply it to myself, it carries with it a very positive connotation.

The word "elitist" springs to mind almost every time I hear a snippet from a speech by B. Hussein Obama, yet I don't mind the appellation when it's applied to me, because, quite frankly, I consider myself an elitist, but in a good way.

I am not a "redneck", nor have I ever been. I don't care if someone calls me a redneck, but the appellation is not applicable in any way to me or my character.

I wouldn't want anyone to infer that I have anything against rednecks, because I don't. I just don't consider myself thus.

I could be a redneck easily enough, though.

God knows I wasn't born with the proverbial silver spoon in my mouth. Quite the contrary, I was born the sixth child in a family that struggled week to week, month to month, just to put enough food on the table to keep us all properly nourished. Often, we as a family would have either chicken or pot roast for Sunday dinner, and then subsist on the leftovers as long as they lasted, then finish the week eating navy beans and cornbread. Then, the cycle would begin again the next week. And so on.

We didn't rub shoulders with the upper crust, and we didn't attempt to ingratiate ourselves into their company. We were erusticated but proud. It is that pride, I think, that compels me to consider myself elite. I have tried to raise my own children with that attitude. I have often repeated to them, "We may be poor white trash, but we don't have to act like it".

You will excuse the faux pas of ending the previous sentence with a preposition, one of my pet peeves. It is what I say, and it makes the point.

I wasn't always an elitist. I suffered from class envy myself until I was well into my twenties, or maybe even into my thirties. I don't recall when the realization came to me that the wealthy were not to be scorned but appreciated for their ability to amass large amounts of money. It is no small task. I suppose it would be fair to say I still envy the rich, but it is with admiration rather than scorn now. If they didn't attain their wealth by hard work and intelligent decisions, they most certainly maintain their riches thusly.

I should probably add here, that I still am not a wealthy man, by any one's estimation. I still struggle week to week, sometimes barely making it to the next paycheck. I am not whining, just stating a fact. I am always working hard to improve my situation. Sometimes I make wrong choices, which result in getting myself into dire straits, but I don't ask for sympathy or help from anyone. I am responsible for myself. I either succeed or fail on my own. I guess it's part of my elitist pride. I refuse to accept pity or assistance from anyone.

I certainly have little right to consider myself elite. I don't possess a degree from any institution of higher learning, unless high school is considered higher learning. I did complete 26 hours of University study, but because of a typical youthful lack of money and ambition, I never finished. Unlike three of my five brothers and sisters, I didn't earn a full academic scholarship.

Nevertheless, I am an elitist. This is not to say I am arrogant, because I'm usually not, although I sometimes catch myself being condescending to others. (In much the same way as GK-S, but not as frequently) Most notably, as it happens, to rednecks. Jeff Foxworthy defines a redneck as someone "with a glorious lack of sophistication". I am loathe to admit it, but I consider myself too sophisticated to be a redneck, at least in the way Foxworthy defines them.

Yes, I'm rambling. It has been a few days since the aforementioned nasty argument occurred. It took this long for the offense to really start eating at me, so much so that I found myself lying awake in bed tonight, mulling over possible retorts.

But, I am better than that.

I lowered myself to GK-S's level by responding in the way that I did, and I am not remorseful for that, because in my opinion, he deserved that and more for his irreverent, smarmy, un-Christian remarks. What I am ashamed of is that I allowed myself to be drawn into a sophomoric, pointless sort of argument, which is better left to the non-thinking Liberals in the blogosphere.

I am above that.

Incidentally, I mentioned that I don't know why he held the opinion that Senator Helms was such a deplorable person, and unfortunately and wrongly, I resorted to the old Liberal tactic of pointing to an example of a Democrat Legislator who's prejudices are arguably as bad or worse than those attributed to Helms. Robert Byrd, to be exact.

What I should have done, was do some research into the life and career of Mr. Helms, and countered with that, instead.

Not knowing the exact reasoning behind the offending commenters disrespectful comments has me at a disadvantage to be sure, but I would assume he was referring to the supposed racism that Liberals and Democrats (the two are not mutually inclusive) of which Mr Helms has often been accused.

The truth can be easily ascertained by a simple googling of Jesse Helm's name. It would seem that Helms has been pretty much a lifetime victim of slander. He wasn't a racist by any stretch of the imagination, in fact, he was quite the opposite.

I got this information from Ann Coulter's online column, which I realize has no credibility in Liberal circles. But before any Liberals raise their expected objection to my using Ann Coulter as a resource, let me point out that in the same article she praised Ted Kennedy for maintaining a good relationship with his staffers, so it must be factual. Here is what Ann says about Jesse Helms:

Helms was viciously and falsely portrayed as a racist -- including in the totally objective New York Times obituary last week. In January 1963, a decade before Helms would run for office, he editorialized about Harvey Gantt, the first black student to be admitted to Clemson University in South Carolina.

Helms praised Gantt to the skies, saying he had "stoutly resisted the pose of a conquering hero" and had "turned away from the liberal press and television networks which would glorify him." Gantt, Helms said, just wanted to be an architect and "Clemson is the only college in South Carolina that can teach him how to be one."

Helms was for integration; he was simply against "movements." He would later hire James Meredith, who was the first black to attend the University of Mississippi -- with the assistance of federal troops. By 1989, Meredith's views had come around to those of Helms, not the other way around.

After years of reading and studying and attending law school at Columbia University, Meredith concluded that blacks had been better off when they worked for themselves and not for white liberals

Now, if Mr GK-S has some reason to dislike Jesse Helms other than the false allegations of racism leveled at him by Liberal Democrats, perhaps he would care to educate us poor, dumb, uneducated bloggers.


Trader Rick said...

I am an effete redneck snob. Unlike my bff Jesse Jackson, I cling to my bible and guns. However, I do agree with him that B. Hussein O'Bama should be castrated, and on TV, too.

Anonymous said...

Mark, I think Proverbs 9:7-10 has some good advice for some of us, me included.
7.He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself, And he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself. 8. Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you, Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. 9. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser, teach a just man, and he will increase in learning. 10. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. Mom2

Mark said...

Duly noted, Mom. I am ashamed and hurt.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Conservatives are elitist in that they believe in objective standards; not all people and societies are of the same rank when it comes to moral and material excellence.

Progressives are elitist in a gnostic sense-- they think they have a super secret insight into reality no one else has, and therefore have the right to bully the "sheeple," as the official story goes, for their own good.

Anonymous said...

Didn't mean to make you feel that way. I've just learned this from past episodes. It does hurt to be insulted, abused verbally by someone that does not know you and has no idea what kind of person one is other than his own bias that he has against your opinion. That was just the balm that helped me. Sorry, if I sounded like I was scolding you. You and I are almost always in agreement. Mom2

Jim said...

Well, you're right about Ann Coulter. She's pretty short of facts. Seems odd that someone who was "for integration" would work as a strategist for a segregationist candidate.

But everyone is welcome to have a hero. If Helms is one of yours and Ann's, so be it. My reading of his life history shows some good aspects, some not so good. Same with Byrd. I despise some of the positions he has espoused in the past. He no doubt was and maybe still is a racist. But he does have a strong abiding respect for the Constitution which is more than I can say for the current administration.

Senator Obama is not my hero, but I'd be interested in seeing some quotes that lead you to believe he is an elitist. And don't throw out the clinging to guns and religion quote. It's only one possible example and has been over-hyped by people who refuse to understand the true meaning of the statement.

Mark said...

Mom, I didn't take offense. I stand chastized and thank you for the reminder.

Mark said...

Now, Jim. You know I can't let you get away with making a statement like that. You say Ann Coulter is short of facts. Explain that please. Exactly what has she said about Helms that isn't true?

I get tired of your continual baseless and unfounded accusations. Put up or shut up.

I'm not going to go through the rather impressive list of things Obama has said that show him to be the elitist he is. I'll let you try to disprove it. And then try to explain the "true meaning" of his elitist comment about clinging to guns and religion.

Ha ha. This should be good.

ELAshley said...

Geoffrey is a hypocrite. He's so knowledgeable about the Bible he can out-preach us all with the barest of effort, and he's good at it; lecturing, and chiding everyone on their lack of knowledge on any given subject and their general inferiority. He can get away with all this because he's married to a pastor. He can get away with all this because you, Mark, let him.

Far be it from me to judge anyone, but Jesus had much to say about the Geoffrey's of this world.

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: "Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

--Luke 18:9-14

You did wrong taking his bait, Mark. I understand how you felt about what he said because he pisses me off too-- as do others --but you have to be better than the likes of Geoffrey.

What will you do? How will you respond when he and others attack the memory of Tony Snow? Remember all the Liberal-hate flung his way when the word went out that he had cancer? Will they show any respect or decorum for a man who was truly blessed with a multitude of talents? A man who was gracious with everyone, no matter how ugly they were with him?

You're a good man, Mark. Don't let the hypocrites get you down.

ELAshley said...

As to the Obamessiah impending deification...

Spike Lee has this to say:

"When [Obama is elected in November], it will change everything. ... You'll have to measure time by 'Before Obama' and 'After Obama,' ...It's an exciting time to be alive now."

Jim said...

I'm supposed to disprove your assertion? That's not the way it's supposed to work.

It's like, Your mother was a prostitute. "I'll let you try to disprove it."

Lone Ranger said...

Jesse Helms worked for segregationist candidates when he was a DEMOCRAT. Less than 50 years ago, the Democrat party will the party of segregation. They still have a former KKK Exalted Cyclops sitting in the Senate. Democrats have absolutely NO authority to lecture anyone on race.

Mark said...

I didn't want to mention his name, EL. He might be alerted to this post, and I prefer it if he doesn't visit and/or comment here.

Be that as it may, do you think he will have to run and retrieve his dictionary in order to understand this post? Wouldn't that be ironic?

Oh, by the way, I used spellcheck creating this post, but didn't have to use a dictionary or thesaurus once.

Mark said...

Jim, When B. Hussein Obama said, "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations", he said it when he thought the microphone was off, and he said it before a gathering of wealthy San Francisco elitists. His own kind.

Why would he need to camoflage his true feelings at that time and in that place? Answer: He didn't. Therefore it is what he really thinks. ergo, elitist.

Most of his other quotes that have been published were statements designed to get votes, and therefore, cannot be considered genuine. They were used for political expediency.

I have never said that Obama is not articulate. In fact, his speech before the Democratic National convention is the sole reason he is now a Presidential candidate. It was a very impressive, but misleading speech in that, it didn't really reflect his true thoughts. He has no other qualifications other than being a good speaker, but like any good politico, he says what his listeners want to hear, which is not necessarily what he really believes.

The "clinging to guns, etc" quote is singular in the fact that he said it when he was unaware he was being recorded, and shows his true attitude. It is a legitimate proof of his elitist attitude, and for that matter, the various elitist quotes by his wife, who isn't as politically aware as her husband, proves elitism by association.

Statements made in private are much more representative of the attitude than pre-screened quotes designed to ingratiate him to the voters everytime. We don't need any other quotes, which the media would no doubt suppress anyway, for proof of his elitism.

I'm still waiting for you to explain his "true meaning".

Jim said...

I've explained it before but I will explain it again.

When people feel powerless to improve their situation regarding health care and finances because both parties are in the pockets of the insurance, pharma, and other corporate lobbies, then they turn to issues that don't concern the special interests and are leveraged by the religious right for political gain: "right to life", prayer in school, ten commandments in public buildings, and guns anywhere, anytime, anybody.

That's what he meant. I've said the same thing in a different way for years. I'm continually baffled by the way so many Americans vote CONTRARY to their health and financial interests because they vote for the "pro-life", anti-gay candidates who take advantage of them. Why do Republicans trot out an anti-choice or anti-gay initiative on the ballot in a state where they need higher voter turn out?

Mark said...

Yes Jim. That is what he meant, except he was specifically talking about the Liberal's elitist impression of all Americans who hold the unalienable rights to life liberty and property sacred, or as Elitist Obama and other empty headed Liberals call them:


I don't know about other Conservatives, I don't vote CONTRARY to my health and financial interests. I vote for candidates who I trust will keep government small, keep taxes low, and uphold the values and morals that our country was founded upon.

And, I vote against Socialism and Marxism. Thus, I vote against Socialist Marxists like B. Hussen Obama.

Lone Ranger said...

Hmmm, Americans vote for good rather than evil (gay, pro-abortion). Imagine that. Every time there is a decision of morality to be made in this country, the Democrats come down on exactly the wrong side of the fence. And then they blame good people for voting "contrary to their interests." I grew up in a house that had no running water. I had to haul drinking water from a well about a quarter mile away. Yet, I don't have to depend on the government for anything. This is such a great country that people don't have to make all the right decisions. All you have to do is avoid wrong decisions. Don't drop out of school, stay away from drugs and alcohol, don't have children out of wedlock, get a job and keep it and work hard. That's all it takes to succeed. The government doesn't help people, it hurts people. And the more people depend on government for their needs, the worse off they become.

Marshall Art said...

Well said, Ranger.

This idea that those on the right vote against their self-interests is a liberal misconception of what really goes on. Those of us on the right vote for what we believe is right, moral, proper, beneficial for all rather than just ourselves, good for the country. In other words, we are being more selfLESS than selfISH when we vote. We are NOT voting to see what the country can do for us, we're voting in a manner that reflects our doing for our country. Gosh. Go figure.

In addition, one has to be liberal to believe that conservatism doesn't benefit everyone. For example, there are more people NOT paying taxes as a result of the Bush tax cuts (something Barry wants to reverse) and those people are on the very low end of the income scale. In the meantime, the very wealthy, the top 1%, those that jerks like Obama slight with every opportunity, pay more of the total tax burden than ever before. Yet they too enjoyed tax cuts. Thus, to vote for a Dem would not only hurt the country in general, but it would be voting against MY self-interests (as well as my conscience).

Jim said...

"Hmmm, Americans vote for good rather than evil (torture, anti-fourth amendment). Imagine that."

Dan Trabue said...

I vote for candidates who I trust will keep government small, keep taxes low, and uphold the values and morals that our country was founded upon.

Like Reagan? Bush? Bush?

The US gov't grew at a historic and unprecedented rate under all three.

Don't believe the false stories and misrepresentations of reality. If you want to vote for the Reagans and Bushes of the world, do so. But do so because you favor the type of BIG gov't they are offering and don't claim to be in favor of small or responsible gov't, when factually they brought neither in the real world.

Anonymous said...

This whole post is just sad.

Marshall Art said...

Explain, Dan. Don't just make a charge and pretend anyone would know what the hell you're talking about. Considering your track record of mistinterpretations, you get right into stating your case. It'll save time.

Erudite Redneck said...

Re, " I used spellcheck creating this post, but didn't have to use a dictionary or thesaurus once."

And damned if you didn't use "erudite" and "redneck" in the same post. I'm impressed.

You tryin' to flirt?

Marshall Art said...


I answered your question to me at the post called "Keeping the Airwaves Fair". I meant to do so sooner, but I forgot where I read the question.

Anonymous said...

Someone is playing games. That post about the whole post being sad and signed by my tag was not me. Mom2
I have had this low down stuff done to me before by liberals. Typical. Deceitful. Mom2

Anonymous said...

Mark, can you check the IP number on that post right after Dan's and see who is pretending to be me? Mom2

Mark said...

No, Mom. I can't. I don't have a clue as to how to do that. Try posting your comment under your own user name instead of anonymous. Other than that, I don't know what can be done about it.

Jim said...


Thanks for the heads up. See my response in the same place.

Al-Ozarka said...

Personally, I decided 'erudite' should be replaced with 'reverend' years ago.

You're preaching to the choir, Mark.

Gayle said...

Mark, I've read the entire post and comment thread and truly don't know what to say, because it seems to have already been covered pretty thoroughly. I guess I'm just too busy clinging to my guns and religion to figure it out. :)

blamin said...

Another enjoyable post.

Wish I'd come across it sooner!