Walkom Admits to Knowing Nothing

Vincent J. Curtis

27 July 2016

Yesterday, the Hamilton Spectator published an Op-Ed piece by the mentally exhausted and mentally famished Toronto Star typist Thomas Walkom.  He can’t figure out why Hillary Clinton is hated and mistrusted!

Walkom wonders, “What is it about Hillary Clinton?”  Why is she so hated by Republicans and held in suspicion by Democrats?

He decides on the basis of an opinion by a blogger named Michael Arnovitz that Hillary is in large part, “paying the political price of being a strong woman playing what is traditionally viewed as a man’s game.”

He goes on to say that, “It’s hard to imagine that this could be true in 2016….but I confess that I can’t think of anything else.”

It is really quite pathetic of an opinion columnist not to be able to think of anything else.  It is hard to imagine that Hillary is hated by Republicans in 2016 because she is a strong woman in politics.  After all, the Republicans nominated Sarah Palin for Vice President in the 2008 election, and presently have numerous strong female governors, congresswomen, and Senators of which they are quite proud.  They hold Margaret Thatcher in the highest admiration.

So, simply being a strong woman in politics can’t be it.  The pathetic play for feminist sympathy by Thomas Walkom falls flat on its face at the slightest investigation.

To discover why Republicans might be angry with Hillary Clinton, let us start with examining what anger is, and why it is aroused.

In his work, The Art of Rhetoric Aristotle defined anger as follows: a desire, accompanied by pain, for revenge, for an obvious belittlement of oneself or one of one’s dependents, the belittlement being uncalled for.  He goes on to say that belittlement is a realization of an opinion about what seems to be of no value, the kinds of belittlement being contempt, spite, and insult.  An insult consists of such things as involve shame for the victim…for the fun of it.

Why would Republicans be angry with Hillary Clinton?  Perhaps because of her obvious contempt for them and her insults of them.  For example, Hillary took great joy in naming Republicans, not ISIS or other enemies of America, not poverty or some such, but Republicans as her enemy during an interview in the 2016 primary campaign.

Throughout her career as first lady, senator from New York, and Secretary of State, she has repeatedly treated Republicans with contempt.  Her obvious perjuries before congressional committees and her evasions are signs of contempt, as well as of guilt.  Her frequent skirting of the law in order to enrich herself, to gain political advantage, and to avoid constitutional scrutiny are other signs of contempt for Republicans and the law.  Her set-up of a private email server was done to evade FOIA requests and to hide the collusion between the Clinton Foundation and herself as Secretary of State.  Her privacy was more important to her than preserving the secrets of the United States. Republicans are motivated, in her opinion, by the basest of motives, including racism, sexism, and the enrichment of their friends at the expense of the poor and downtrodden.

That might be some reasons why Republicans are angry with Hillary Clinton.

A reason why Democrats might be distrustful of Hillary Clinton are the lies she has been caught in.  One can never be sure with a Clinton the purpose of the lie; all you can be sure of is that you are being lied to.  Lying breeds distrust, especially if you are the one harmed by the lie.  Sanders’ supporters were hurt by Hillary’s lies.  Being lied to your face can breed anger and mistrust.

This isn’t hard to figure out, or even generate 750 words over.

I have dealt with Walcom before, as a lousy sycophant for Justin Trudeau and the Liberal party.  With his admission of knowing nothing and not even being able to muster the imagination why Hillary might evoke anger and distrust other than for base motives, I am done with this admitted failure.

-30-