Problem: Background: Norman Ernest Borlaug (March 25, 1914 - September 12, 2009) was an American agronomist and humanitarian who led initiatives worldwide that contributed to the extensive increases in agricultural production termed the Green Revolution. Borlaug was awarded multiple honors for his work, including the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Borlaug received his B.Sc. in Forestry in 1937 and Ph.D. in plant pathology and genetics from the University of Minnesota in 1942.
Context: Borlaug's name is nearly synonymous with the Green Revolution, against which many criticisms have been mounted over the decades by environmentalists and some nutritionalists. Throughout his years of research, Borlaug's programs often faced opposition by people who consider genetic crossbreeding to be unnatural or to have negative effects. Borlaug's work has been criticized for bringing large-scale monoculture, input-intensive farming techniques to countries that had previously relied on subsistence farming. These farming techniques often reap large profits for U.S. agribusiness and agrochemical corporations and have been criticized for widening social inequality in the countries owing to uneven food distribution while forcing a capitalist agenda of U.S. corporations onto countries that had undergone land reform. Other concerns of his critics and critics of biotechnology in general include: that the construction of roads in populated third-world areas could lead to the destruction of wilderness; the crossing of genetic barriers; the inability of crops to fulfill all nutritional requirements; the decreased biodiversity from planting a small number of varieties; the environmental and economic effects of inorganic fertilizer and pesticides; the amount of herbicide sprayed on fields of herbicide-resistant crops. Borlaug dismissed most claims of critics, but did take certain concerns seriously. He stated that his work has been "a change in the right direction, but it has not transformed the world into a Utopia". Of environmental lobbyists he stated, "some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things".
Question: Why was Borlaug criticized?
Answer: Borlaug's name is nearly synonymous with the Green Revolution, against which many criticisms have been mounted over the decades by environmentalists and some nutritionalists.

Problem: Background: The Three Stooges were an American vaudeville and comedy team active from 1922 until 1970, best known for their 190 short subject films by Columbia Pictures that have been regularly airing on television since 1958. Their hallmark was physical farce and slapstick. In films, the stooges were commonly known by their actual first names. There were a total of six stooges over the act's run (with only three active at any given time), but Moe Howard and Larry Fine were the mainstays throughout the ensemble's nearly fifty-year run and the pivotal "third Stooge" was played by (in order of appearance)
Context: Over half a century since their last short film was released, the Three Stooges remain popular with audiences. Their films have never left American television since first appearing in 1958, and they continue to delight old fans while attracting new admirers. They were a hard-working group of comedians who were never the critics' darlings, a durable act who endured several personnel changes in their careers that would have permanently sidelined a less persistent act. The Stooges would not have lasted as long as they did as a unit without Moe Howard's guiding hand. The Ted Okuda and Edward Watz book The Columbia Comedy Shorts puts the Stooges' legacy in critical perspective: Many scholarly studies of motion picture comedy have overlooked the Three Stooges entirely - and not without valid reasoning. Aesthetically, the Stooges violated every rule that constitutes "good" comedic style. Their characters lacked the emotional depth of Charlie Chaplin and Harry Langdon; they were never as witty or subtle as Buster Keaton. They were not disciplined enough to sustain lengthy comic sequences; far too often, they were willing to suspend what little narrative structure their pictures possessed in order to insert a number of gratuitous jokes. Nearly every premise they have employed (spoofs of westerns, horror films, costume melodramas) has been done to better effect by other comedians. And yet, in spite of the overwhelming artistic odds against them, they were responsible for some of the finest comedies ever made. Their humor was the most undistilled form of low comedy; they were not great innovators, but as quick laugh practitioners, they place second to none. If public taste is any criterion, the Stooges have been the reigning kings of comedy for over fifty years. Beginning in the 1980s, the Stooges finally began to receive critical recognition. The release of nearly all their films on DVD by 2010 has allowed critics of Joe Besser and Joe DeRita - often the recipients of significant fan backlash - to appreciate the unique style of comedy that both men brought to the Stooges. In addition, the DVD market has allowed fans to view the entire Stooge film corpus as distinct periods in their long, distinguished career rather than unfairly comparing one Stooge to another (the Curly vs. Shemp debate continues to this day). The team appeared in 220 films, but it is the durability of the 190 short films the Stooges made at Columbia Pictures that acts as an enduring tribute to the comedy team. American television personality Steve Allen went on record in 1984 saying, "Although they never achieved widespread critical acclaim, they did succeed in accomplishing what they had always intended to do: they made people laugh."
Question: What else was they legacy known for
Answer:
"Although they never achieved widespread critical acclaim, they did succeed in accomplishing what they had always intended to do: they made people laugh.