Tim Blair

What the fuck is going on here?

The formally Australian, now American, World Bank President James Wolfensohn says something of which Timbo doesn't approve, and suddenly he's stripped of his U.S citizenship and lumped in with the Europeans?

Or can it be that the Europeans are guilty of everything these days?

You're worse than Andy Bolt when it comes to misrepresentation, Tim!

Jebus Christ!

Apparently "Block" didn't take the time to read the article.

Blow it out of your sphincter, sphincter!

Thanks for informing me that intellectuals are to be feared: heretofore, most working class chumps such as myself were no doubt operating under the misapprehension that intellectuals were to be regarded as objects of derision.

In any event, if rebutting the conservative views put forth at this site is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, why bother? (That comment hurt my feelings so I'll join you in having a cry: boo hoo.)

Criticism I'm fine with. Anonymous threats? No.

Bye, Sph.

Not too bright, are they?

Ralph Peters article is true. Hypocrisy and double standard are the normal way our media , so-called leftist highbrows and their politicians, deal with everything regarding USA or Israel. Precisely after long training against Israel now they're using the same tactics against allied forces. It is enough to remember the internal campaign against those loyal to Bush and Blair.... : http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen070203.asp

well i was protesting outside of the ana when james wolfensohn last came to sydney. i really dislike him and his long-standing tendency to approve loans to hideous despots. i don't recall seeing you there tim.

re wallace's comment that "Apparently "Block" didn't take the time to read the article". prey tell where in the article it says wolfensohn was born in australia? the post has just thought, here's this dude with a vaguely european-sounding name, why don't we just use his stupid comments [and they are stupid: wolfensohn is not a smart man] and lazily tie them into that european-are-bad theme we've been pimping for the last 6 months. no one at the post bothered to check, you know, facts, cause if they had of they'd have realised (a) wolfensohn was born in australia, and (b) subsequently became an american citizen [which, from memory, you have to be in order to head the world bank...you'd also think people deriding "Eurotrash in Brussels" might have noticed that].

wolfensohn's comments have been taken as an excuse for a rant by the post, except the rant kinda flies in the face of a bunch of known facts about the world bank [hq in washington, not brussels] and wolfensohn. it's sloppy, even for a paper owned by tim blair's former employer.

also, "The Europeans watched indifferently as Hitler rose among them. They curried Stalin's favor". what sort of heartless leader would watch indifferently as hitler rose to power? what manner of moron would obsequiously call stalin "a great man"? not just europeans, says f.d.r.

Adam,

Wolfensohn, according to his online biography, is obviously none too bright.

Born in Australia in December 1933, Mr. Wolfensohn is a naturalized US citizen. He holds a BA and LLB from the University of Sydney and an MBA from the Harvard Graduate School of Business.

Before attending Harvard, he was a lawyer in the Australian law firm of Allen Allen & Hemsley. Mr. Wolfensohn served as an Officer in the Royal Australian Air Force, and was a member of the 1956 Australian Olympic Fencing Team. Mr. Wolfensohn is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a Fellow of the American Philosophical Society.

Nonetheless, extraordinaily bright men can make extraordinarily dumb comments.

I believe Ralph Peters's point is that, based on his comments, Mr. Wolfensohn seemed to aspire to be a French diplomat. In other words, one need not be European in order to behave as a European any more than one need be French in order to speak French.

It's hard to believe that a low-brow paper like the Post has written something that sailed right over your head.

it didn't sail over my head. i briefly considered whether that was the point, but decided it was unlikely on account of the fact that wolfensohn's nationality is nowhere mentioned.

i mean, if that was peters' point, he would've pointed out at some stage that wolfensohn is australian/american. wolfensohn's personal background is not exactly a notorious fact in america. i wouldn't know it if my obsession with all things world bank hadn't led me to read a profile of him in the establishment wrag foreign policy. i don't see how a "low-brow paper like the post" can get away with assuming people know it.

also, wolfensohn got a bunch of degrees, worked as a shyster-lawyer for a few years, and managed the difficult task of following orders in the air force. a genius, then.

on the other hand, he fenced.

Hey, don't knock shooting fish in a barrel.

It's fun.

And besides, there are too many fish, - someone has to cull them.

Adam,

Peters refers to Wolfensohn as the source of a statement that is indicative of the "European" attitude common amongst the "world's diplomats and international bankers". Peters then goes on to discuss the diplomatic community's preoccupation with "traditional wisdom".

The focus of the article is the attitude, not Wolfensohn, who simply displays the attitude. Wolfensohn's nationality is irrelevant but his attitude is European.

And, by the way, you are playing the man and not the ball. That will cost you a free kick plus a 50 metre penalty.

look, if you can't accept, at the very least, that peters' article is sloppy on account of not pointing out wolfensohn's nationality, then i've nothing to gain in arguing with you. that's just so obvious; i don't understand why you would argue otherwise.

and "playing the man and not the ball"? where?

Adam,

You're playing the man by trying to discredit Peters's piece based on his failure to mention Wolfensohn's nationality, which in any event is not relevant to the point being made.

I will admit that Peters has couched the piece so as to appeal to the Post's target audience.

He has incited you has he not?

"You're playing the man by trying to discredit Peters's piece based on his failure to mention Wolfensohn's nationality"

how is that playing the man? playing the man [as opposed to the ball] refers to the making of ad hominem attacks, which [your characterisation of] my argument most certainly is not.

adam,

"wolfensohn's comments have been taken as an excuse for a rant by the post, except the rant kinda flies in the face of a bunch of known facts about the world bank [hq in washington, not brussels] and wolfensohn. it's sloppy, even for a paper owned by tim blair's former employer".

Playing the man not the ball.

the article is a rant, and it is sloppy. for it to be an ad hominem attack i would need to have said something like "peters is a sloppy writer given to ranting".

adam,

That's a bit pedantic, is it not?