October 14, 2007
Krugman Tries To Smear Gore Opponents As Deranged
When
Charles Krauthammer coined the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" some years back, he was well-within his competence in doing so. After all, he is a trained mental health professional. Now that
Paul Krugman tries to label those of us who think that Al Gore did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize as suffering from Gore Derangement Syndrome, I'd like to point out that he is practicing medicine without a license.
On the day after Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize, The Wall Street JournalÂ’s editors couldnÂ’t even bring themselves to mention Mr. GoreÂ’s name. Instead, they devoted their editorial to a long list of people they thought deserved the prize more.
Yeah, that some of us might argue that a bunch of human rights campaigners and courageous opponents of dictatorship are a wee bit more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than the Gore is obviously a sign of psychological problems -- NOT. After all, that is who the WSJ list includes, not Rush Limbaugh or a who's who of right-wing pundits.
Krugman then goes on to list other folks opposing the hypocritical carbon sasquatch who demands that everyone except him cut back on their "carbon footprint" while selling latter day indulgences to violators.
And given that there is not a clear scientific consensus in favor of man-made global warming (whatever the political or pop-culture consensus), opposition to the Gore agenda is not a sign of mental illness -- it is a sign of critical thinking.
Posted by: Greg at
11:35 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Yes, indeed, those crazy Nobel Peace Prize people aren't nearly as informed as you are. (Thanks for the chuckle, and the illustration of Krugman's thesis - but you forgot to complain that Gore is fat. Concentrate!!)
Posted by: Dan at Mon Oct 15 01:44:18 2007 (IU21y)
2
Dan, consider Nobel's criteria -- the prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".
How does Al Gore even make it into consideration under such criteria?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Oct 15 12:45:21 2007 (ybrNQ)
3
He makes it under the "fraternity between the nations" clause. Read up on prior recipients, and you'll see a lot of them pose a similar issue.
Posted by: Dan at Mon Oct 15 15:35:04 2007 (IU21y)
4
And I'd make a similar argument with those other recipients.
Especially considering that then, as now, there are a whole lot more deserving individuals and groups that met/meet the criteria.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Oct 15 15:59:12 2007 (ybrNQ)
5
Of course there are always arguments about who should win, and that is why the selection committee exists. Krugman does a fine job of pointing out the rightwing's mental breakdown due to the committee's decision. The WSJ won't even use his name! Silly behavior from immature twits.
Posted by: Dan at Tue Oct 16 00:22:30 2007 (IU21y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
8kb generated in CPU 0.0043, elapsed 0.0116 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0083 seconds, 34 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.