Here are three from a somewhat old bookmarks folder that tickled me.
- The Current Occupant goes for a walk …
- Garrison Keillor gently shreds W.
- Fair is fair
- Michael O'Hare makes a case that Bush is not, in fact, the worst president ever. The only thing wrong with this article is that I'm sure there are a few wingnuts who will take it seriously.
- Electrifying: Is living under power lines harmful to your health?
- Cecil Adams gives The Straight Dope on this old chestnut.
4 comments:
Update by DDW There is no satire in the following comment, so don't look for any.
Satire is like going for the extra half-twist in a diving competition. Pull it off artfully, and you turn a very good performance into a great one. Blow it, and you lose everything.
The disclaimer at the end of Fair is fair is shocking:
“Update by MK I thought Mike's sarcasm was sufficiently broad, but just in case: this post is not a defense of George W. Bush. Some of our friends in Blue Blogistan need to get a grip, or a life.”
Apparently, there are some indigo-violet blogistanis who were so moved to outrage by the suggestion that Bush is not as evil as Hitler, Stalin, and the reality show Survivor that they failed to apprehend the crushingly obvious satire and, pitchforks and torches in hand, spewed blue-flame at the infidel author.
The disclaimer is somewhat clumsy and cowardly in my opinion, the rhetorical equivalent of telling a funny joke, then explaining the punch line for the dim-witted who might be eavesdropping and expecting everyone to laugh.
Ungettable satire is self-flattery, unmistakable satire is tedious, and well-done satire is not served by painful disclaimers. The Republican Party was destroyed by pandering to the wingnut extreme. Surely the Left need not succomb to the same destructive impulse.
Although the above analysis is incredibly insightful and should be enjoyed for its wit and precision, it contains no satire, so please don't flame me if you purport to find any.
P.S. Just kidding. I was being sarcastic. Just so you know...
LOL! Very well said.
I agree with you about 99%. The one hesitation is that I know how many people miss things in print, since tone of voice is harder to convey, and much harder for the casual reader to pick up. I myself chicken out sometimes, and post a comment under my own posts, to the effect of "kidding, people!!!"
But you're 100% right about the disclaimer being clunky. The author should have put some effort into it, especially as the original piece was so well-done.
And there's no doubt that the answer to "How many Nation readers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?" is "Two. And it's not funny!"
It is only not funny to those who know that "American post-colonial literature" refers not to the 18th century but to the 20th century! Such people are far too educated to mess with safely, so I'll stay clear.
Post a Comment