Id like to see more entrants in the amateur division but ryck looks to be a strong contestant. He gets extra points for hyperlinks (his footnotes) that link to files on his personal hard drive. Hey, who knew that a file like

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/My%20Documents/Ryck’s%20Politics%208.07.07%20and%20on/Ryck’s%20Essays%20for%20Townhall%20blog/Krugman%20Receives%20the%20Ultimate%20Insult%20The%20Swedes%20Bozo%20Prize%20of%20Leftist%20Robots.10.13.08.doc#_ftn18

could only be viewed by ryck personally?

You’re much too kind – that HTML is straight out of Microsoft Word with all it’s inline style goodness. You didn’t think that a frother like rycK actually knew how to author HTML did you?

W3 Validator says 252 errors

What technicality? Picture this: you’re judging a rythmic gymnastics competition, and for the first time ever, a contestant deploys a feather boa and castanets. You’re beguiled, charmed, seduced, distracted. And the chief judge has even spoken warmly of the feather boa.

That’s like #5. You’ve been taken in by the rainbow color scheme of rycK’s blog. His autobiography (“I saw the best minds of my generation starving, hysterical, writing for Tech Central Station…”) has pyrotechnics far outstripping his anti-Krugman freeper-flaregun blast.

The problem: people here are supposed to be voting based on actual on-topic detonations, not on this pyrotechnic color lovingly prepared long in advance without Krugman (especially) in mind. It’s not that rycK couldn’t have won. It’s just that we had an inadequate and/or misleading Voter’s Guide, resulting in too many votes for rycK.

I vote Anderson, with the understanding that it could have gone to rycK if this competition hadn’t been criminally mismanaged, like mismangaed wrose than Hilter wood mismanag it ….

WTF is up with that?

Ryck is clearly the most raving lunatic of the lot, but the true brilliance of insanity is in subtlety and clarity. Anderson is The Joker, diabolically scheming his brilliant master comparisons; Ryck is just that henchman who empties his machine gun into the darkness at the first hint that Batman is on the scene.

Everybody seems to be locked into passé literary noti0ns as well as outdated dogma. Thinking backward is a 20th Century lost virtue.

Also, update on the krugmanical one here:http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/17/the_winner_of_the_swedes_bozo_prize_for_leftist_stooges_now_instructs_us_in_fiscalism.thtml

rycK

nd th grtts slg n Dvd Brnstn s jst prl. Tll m, Hnry: r y mr pst bcs Brnstn’s bks t-slls yrs by fctr f dzn r bcs hs wrk hs nflnc n th wrld whl y’r prfssnl mstrbtr?

Excellent point. Maybe we should insist that all denizens of Mount Wingnut have this little device installed on their computers, first proposed by Randall Munroe at XKCD, and shortly thereafter actually implemented on youtube:
http://xkcd.com/481/

^_J:

That answers the question about where the editors must have been when this steaming pile was submitted.

Consider, a PhD in Economics became so unhinged by regular strength Krugman that he decided to actually publish a paper that relied upon psychoanalysis (“a mentality particularly of people of high strata who are chiefly concerned with being among what they regard to be the top of the pyramid of culture and power”) and evolutionary psychology (“That such a penchant would be selected for in the environment of evolutionary adaptation is certainly plausible”) in order to support its thesis, without ever consulting or co-authoring with a specialist in such matters, is quite impressive.

Even more SuperAwsum is the “journal” that published it has as its mandate: “EJW watches the journals for inappropriate assumptions, weak chains of argument, phony claims of relevance, and omissions of pertinent truths.”

When confronted by Nobel Krugman (#1 Economist), splosions are absolutely inevitable (or at least plausibly certain).

Doesn’t your IRS publication say that Nobel prizes are “generally” included in taxable income, unless certain conditions are met, of which one is that you never receive the prize and direct that it be given to a non-taxable entity? That’s how I read it.