Posted on 09/24/2011 10:00:03 AM PDT by moneyrunner
The Wall Street Journal’s “Best of the Web” column by James Taranto has a regular feature called “Life imitates the Onion,” the Onion being a satirical publication. This morning as I was glancing through my local paper’s op-ed section I noted a column by Margaret Carlson that has to fit the definition. Trying to make fun of Republicans she noted that there is a lot of vocal opposition on the Right about the law that effectively bans 100 watt incandescent light bulbs. How did Congress do that? I’ll let Margaret Carlson explain:
"Under the law … a 100-watt incandescent bulb would have to use only 72 watts of energy starting in 2012."
Carlson was serious, oblivious to the fact that a 100 watt bulb uses 100 watts of energy, by definition! If it uses less or more, it’s not a 100 watt bulb.
Which is no less insane that the Onion article that claimed that legislation had been introduced that changes the value of pi to 3 because the real value 3.1416 was too hard to use.
she does baby talk.
she’s one of bill o’reilly’s moo cows.
bill’s penetrating mind examines each woman that will let him treat them that way.
laura ingram, ann ooulter, sarah palin, michelle malkin do not.
Margaret Carlson proves, once again, that she’s a dim bulb.
It seems that one can make a pretty good living just by being liberal.
The Onion was scooped on the pi story in decades ago. Some dork submitted to a state legislature (sorry that I forget the details) that pi be written into law as somethin like 3.2. Please see the fantastic book from 1972 called The History of Pi if interested. Its an amazing read. I’ll post the author if I can find it on my bookshelf.
Actually, although leftists exaggerate the incident greatly as a warning against allowing religious reasoning into democracy, the “pi” incident isn’t completely fiction. In Indiana, there was some debate about setting the value of pi, and a legislator did want to set it to 3, supposedly because that was what the bible appeared to indicate the value of pi was.
In reality, the 1897 bill was to set the value to 3.2, and so it’s hard to figure this was based on any biblical interpretation. Rather, it was an attempt to “square the circle,” based on the faulty math of physican and ameteur mathematician Edwin Goodwin. Fortunately, a math professor corrected the legislator about how Von Lindemann had recently (1887) proven the impossibility of squaring a circle to approximate pi.
No she's not. You're thinking of of the truly annoying mental lightweight Margaret Hoover. Carlson is the ultra-liberal former "Time" columnist.
Thanks for clearing that up! I couldn’t think of a single Carlson-appearance on O’Reilly’s show. You’re right about Hoover, too.
Carlson is specially qualified to speak about things that affect the environment because she is a frog in real life.
The human appearance is just a skin suit, but with a rather froggy look.
You can see her tongue snap out and grab a fly occasionally. But it happens REAL fast so you have to watch real close.
The suit doesn’t mask all frog brain functions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.