No fulsome apologies from Walt!

This morning I heard an educated woman -- the director of a charity which aids the poor and down-trodden of the Third World -- talking on public radio about war crimes allegedly committed in Somalia. (The alleged criminals were Americans of course, not the Islamic terrorist group al-Shabaab. Hey, it was public radio!)

The speaker called for a "fulsome investigation" of the "deliberate starvation" of Somalis by the wicked Americans, through restrictions on food aid which otherwise would have prevented the "famine".

A "fulsome investigation"... Really? I'm guessing the speaker really wants a full, complete, thorough investigation, but, in spite of her higher learning, misunderstands the meaning of the adjective "fulsome". Walt's Annadale's dictionary says "fulsome" means "cloying, surfeiting, offensive from excess of praise, gross (flattery, compliments), nauseous, disgusting".

The misuse of "fulsome" has become something of an epidemic amongst the lamestream media and chattering classes. I am sick, sore and tired of hearing news "reporters" promising "more fulsome coverage at 11", and politicians promising to give an issue their "fulsome attention".

This abuse of vocabulary stems, no doubt, from a wish to sound better-educated than the speakers really are. To "big themselves up", as speakers of Ebonics say, the professional talkers reach for the sesquipedelian word, when a plain, simple word would do. To those who are tempted so to do, Walt recommends two books: 30 Day to a More Powerful Vocabulary, by Wilfred Funk (yes, that Funk, as in "Funk & Wagnalls") and Norman Lewis, and the seminal work by Dr. Rudolf Fleisch, The Art of Plain Talk.

If you are a professional talker, and intend to go on misusing "fulsome" because it sounds good, I say, go right ahead and demonstrate your ignorance of proper English. And spare me your fulsome apologies.

War criminals: wanted by the CBSA, protected by the CBC

Earlier this month, the Canada Border Services Agency (counterpart to U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services) published a list of 30 international war criminals believed to be hiding in Canada. Some of them are legal immigrants. And you won't be surprised to know that some of them are not.

According to the CBSA's website, "These individuals are the subject of an active Canada-wide warrant for removal because they are inadmissible to Canada. It has been determined that they violated human or international rights under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act or under international law." Here's the list.

This list, or at least a link to it, has been published by virtually every newspaper and TV network or station in Canada. Except the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The "people's network" -- for it is largely funded by the state, that is the Canadian taxpayer -- has reported the story, after a fashion, but steadfastly refuses to give the names, let alone show the pictures of the wanted men.

Why? The CBC cites privacy concerns. Yet when warrants are issued for the arrest of people like Tubby Black and DSK, their alleged crimes get extensive coverage.

The real reason for the CBC's reticence, Walt can reveal, is political correctness. If you haven't already done so, check out the list. Note the ethnicity of those at large. Not one North American in the lot. Otherwise, a real United Nations: some South Americans and east Europeans, several Africans and Asians. Yes a real mixed bag -- racially mixed and religiously mixed, with several Muslims in the list.

But there's one thing they all these "usual suspects" have in common. They're all immigrants -- legal or otherwise. And that's why the CBC won't identify them. Because the Canadian public might somehow get the impression that amongst the barrels of immigrants being welcomed through Canada's porous borders are more than a few bad apples.

The Canadian Broadcorping Castration, you see, does not agree with their government's plans to crack down on immigration and crime. Rounding up and deporting a few bogus refugees? Stripping criminals of their citizenship and sending them back whence they came? Oh no! That would be contrary to the ideals of multiculturalism and diversity which are so good for Canada and so universally admired by all right-thinking people.

If you're Canadian, and you are fed up with the CBC's constant pushing of multiculturalism, gay rights, and the rest of the left-liberal agenda, you can write to: Audience Relations, CBC, P.O. Box 500 Station A, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5W 1E6

Send a copy to your Member of Parliament. You don't need to spend 59 cents (plus tax) on a stamp. It's free to send anything -- even a cow patty in a brown envelope (not recommended by Walt!) -- to [Name of your member] MP, House of Commons, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1A 0A6.

It probably won't do you any good, but it'll make you feel better.

If you don't like sending snail-mail by Canada Post (and who could blame you?), go to this page and you'll find a form you can use to send an e-mail. The CBC is constantly encouraging viewers/listeners to send e-mails, but Walt suspects that they're only counted, not read. However, because no-one writes letters any more, you're might actually get a response to a real letter.