Worthless Nobel Prize
Find a Conversation
Worthless Nobel Prize
| Mon, 10-13-2008 - 8:07am |
The Nobel Prize is officially a leftist propaganda tool. After giving the award to such luminaries as Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore, a Nobel Prize has now been given to NY TImes columnist Paul Krugman. Not that I had much respect for the award before, but now, I think it is completely worthless.

Pages
Well, you might start instead with why - in each of those specific years - you feel that the person who received the prize was LESS worthy than one or more of the other nominees. Show your work; give specific examples.
Then, if you've made a credible case for THAT, you might be able to move on to impugning the motives of those who would choose such clearly un (or under) qualified candidates. Because that'd be a reasonable question to ask at that point: why would the committee continue to award the prize to people who weren't the most deserving of it. Unless you've done that, though, it just sounds like partisan kvetching that things didn't go the way you wanted them to.
>>All my original post said that I basically thought that the Nobel Prize had been highjacked by leftist Europeans with an agenda.
Now that's a MUCH less inflammatory way of stating your opinion. Your mistake in the OP was suggesting that their decision was leftist propaganda. I find it surprising that you don't see why this was not embraced by those on the left.
Laura
>>Why don't you criticize what I said about the people who give out the Nobel Prizes?
Personally, I thought that Robert Gallo was robbed. But I don't consider that to be a right-wing (or left-wing) propaganda tool. Poop happens.
Laura
Here is a general description of the theories that led to the prize:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/press.html
and here is a link to an overview of the full scientific research:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2008/ecoadv08.pdf
Essentially, Krugman was awarded the prize for ""for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity". He laid the groundwork for his theories as far back as 1979 or so.
I know the difference, but I personally find Krugman so dispicable, that I don't think he should be honored for anything. Just my opinion...
*Hugo Chavez didn't get a Nobel Prize. Jimmy Carter did. I just brought up Carter's legitimizing of Chavez's highly questionable election as one of the many reasons he didn't deserve it.
If you know the difference then why did you lump the academic prizes in with the Peace prize?
Personally, I find James Watson pretty despicable, but he clearly deserved the Nobel prize for his work with DNA. I'm not an economist, but I would assume that the committee that selected Krugman's work did so for the quality and importance of the research rather than his qualities as a human being.
Edited 10/13/2008 4:43 pm ET by laura_w2
I was just making the point that a lot of leftists seem to win Nobel Prizes, and in my opinion, undeservedly so, which makes me question the motivation of those who give out the prizes.
That's it.
So, has this "mean-spirited partisan hack" been wrong about what he's been writing
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
Pages