ShareThis Page
Revisionism now |

Revisionism now

Around the time President Obama received the Nobel Prize, early in his presidency, early enough to raise concern as to why he got it, I wrote the letter “Revisionism circa 2029” . My theory at the time was that history has always been prone to revision, but modern media such as television and the Internet speed the process of revision, making it a scientific certainty. In my letter, I supposed it might take 10 to 20 years before the process of revision began.

I’m a silly person and was mistaken. Obama’s presidency isn’t even over yet, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, also a Nobel Prize winner, has gone to bat with a Rolling Stone article, “In Defense of Obama.”

The work of the president, and the impact it’s had and is having, is being falsified as my words are being typed. It appears every man, woman and child in the world is beholden for the peace and prosperity they must be enjoying. ObamaCare is a roaring success and is causing no one upset, physical harm or financial hardship. The Federal Reserve is a fine and responsible organization and had nothing to do with the real estate meltdown of 2008. There is no reason to intercede against Wall Street, and drone missile strikes are not acts of violence.

I already admitted that I can be a bit of a flake, but it seems the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize is mass deception. Why should the military/industrial complex have to take a loss over some silly old nursery rhyme about world peace?

Bruce Reisner

Perry Hilltop

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.