A potpourri of interesting current events, new products, humor and just plain fun, so pull up a chair and stay a while. If your favorite post has disappeared out of sight, you can find it by selecting a category from the left hand side bar.
I am Perry Peterson, a retired auditor and tax accountant. My wife Valeta and I live along the front range of the beautiful Colorado Rocky Mountains.
Please note: some of the links in older postings on this website may have expired by the time you see them.
The report last January said that Senator Harry Reid was injured while exercising on a piece of equipment that used an elastic band.
John Hinderaker of PowerLine asked, “What does it look like happened to Reid?
He looks like he has been in a fight, and not with an elastic band. Some are speculating that he had a run-in with Las Vegas underworld characters. There is zero evidence for that.
Perhaps Reid is an unsteady, elderly gentleman with precarious balance, and a snapping band caused him to fall with what seems like extraordinary force. But I doubt it.
Mr. Hinderaker says he thinks it is questionable whether we are being told the truth about what happened to Harry Reid.
This, along with broken ribs and a concussion was caused by an elastic band? No wonder many people ain't buyin' it!
Reid’s office is sticking with the elastic exercise band story. This is how they said the accident allegedly happened:
The accident happened when an elastic exercise band broke, striking Reid in the face and causing him to fall, said spokesman Adam Jentleson. Reid struck some equipment as he fell, breaking multiple bones near his right eye.
As he hit the floor, he broke several ribs.
To even sound plausible, the band had to have hit him repeatedly!
Mr. Hinderaker said a friend of his was in Las Vegas soon after and talked to a number of people there about Reid’s accident, and didn’t find anyone who believed the elastic exercise band story.
The common assumption was that the incident resulted, in some fashion, from Reid’s relationship with organized crime. The principal rumor heard was that Reid had promised to obtain some benefit for a group of mobsters.
He met with them on New Year’s Day, and broke the bad news that he hadn’t been able to deliver what he promised. When the mobsters complained, Reid (according to the rumor) made a comment that they considered disrespectful, and one of them beat him up.
Is that what really happened? It does sound more likely than the elastic exercise band story.
One of the many facts about Ted Kennedy (pictured) that you won’t learn by visiting the new Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate is the Chappaquiddick story.
In case you haven’t been eagerly anticipating the magic moment, the “Institute” opens tomorrow amid yet another orgy of shameless bum-kissing of what was once called “America’s First Family” by the mainstream media.
It will be a monument to the bum who did more to destroy America than any other person. At Teddy’s funeral Obama called him “the soul of the Democratic party.”
The Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate ignores major facts.
When Ted Kennedy wrote his initial account of Chappaquiddick for the Edgartown police in 1969, after he scrawled the words “Mary Jo” in the first sentence he left a blank space, because he had no idea what his victim’s last name was.
In September 1972, in the Oval Office, Henry Kissinger told President Nixon a story about Cristina Ford, Henry Ford’s wife, being stalked by Teddy in Manhattan. Finally Mrs. Ford locked herself in her suite at the Carlyle Hotel, where FBI reports in 1965 said Teddy had been engaging in wild “sex parties,” like his older brothers before him, with Marilyn Monroe.
Kissinger: “(He) practically beat her door down … She finally told him, ‘What if the newspapers get this?’ He said, ‘No newspapers are going to print anything about me. I’ve got that covered’.
Also left out will be the famous FBI report from Dec. 28, 1961, which described how during his visit to Santiago, Chile, he “made arrangements to ‘rent’ a brothel … for the night.”
As he returns to run the NBC News Group, Andy Lack (shown at right) faces one of the same puzzles he tried to solve a decade and a half ago: how to make MSNBC work.
While Lack was away, MSNBC changed from traditional news to a political network with a distinct liberal lens mired in a ratings slump.
Typical MSNBC left-wing hosts
The current picture is seriously ugly. Through early March, Chris Hayes' viewership at 8 p.m. on weekdays was down 23 percent from last year, Rachel Maddow was off 24 percent and Lawrence O'Donnell down 26 percent. Among the 25-to-54-year-old demographic that is the basis for advertising sales, the prime-time lineup lost nearly half its audience. Daytime isn't much better.
The big question is: can Andy Lack improve MSNBC’s viewership with hard-left liberal show hosts?
A Quinnipiac University poll of 1,286 registered voters a month ago found 29 percent of people said Fox was their most trusted news source, compared to 7 percent for MSNBC. Even among Democrats, more than twice as many people said they trusted CNN more for news than MSNBC.
A report at the link below says that despite the steady wave of scandals that have begun to erode even the New York Times’ portrayal of Hillary Clinton, her image remains unblemished on Wikipedia.
Since he first started editing her page in June 2005, Hillary’s “Wikipedia watchdog" has been guarding against slanders, accusations, unfair assumptions, and distortions on the high-traffic, heavily footnoted, highly policed Hillary Rodham Clinton Wikipedia page.
His name is Jonathan Schilling and he guards her Wikipedia listing against unauthorized editing.
Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia started by Jimmy Wales 15 years ago contains nearly 5 million articles.
Despite what Wikipedia claims, nearly anyone can add a Wikipedia article, or edit an existing Wikipedia article.
If no one could alter Wikipedia articles why would Hillary Clinton need to have a dedicated watchdog keeping her entry ‘squeaky’ clean?
Wikipedia: the most quoted - least accurate site on the web
We found so many negative reports about Wikipedia that we created a special category for them on this blog. The links in some of the older reports have expired.
The Hillary Wikipedia page editing report is here. The most notable Wikipedia hoaxes can be found here