whoever wrote The Onion's piece obviously hated Reagan. How else could you write such a thing? I consider the very concept of that piece to be inherently vindictive because it preys on his illness at a time when he was, in effect, defenseless.

Am I being vindictive w.r.t. Ted? Obviously. Am I proud of being vindictive? No, not really.

I'm just tired to letting things like the slurs on Reagan and Bush go and taking the high road. I feel as though I have been sucked down into the muck with the denizens of the likes of The Onion, DailyKos, Democrat Underground, and various other political hackeries.

Targeted the doctors and the hypothetical newspaper reporter for abuse. People laugh at the disabled (and insist that they are laughing with them). By forcing the reader to view the same behavior directed towards a former president instead of some random kid, they are forced to reflect on the propriety of the issue.

Why is Timmy on South Park funny, but similar behavior towards Reagan make the reader so uncomfortable? Why is it OK to be amused by the antics of a real kid struggling with a disability?

Hmmm.  Interesting.  Kudos on creating a decent cover story here.  It would sound plausible to me if I actually believe for a minute that the Doctors and Fictional Reporter actually acted this way towards anyone in their care or otherwise.  I simply don't believe that they are or that they do.

Who is it that is amused by the antics of a real kid struggling with a disability?  What is the likelyhood that any such person actually reads The Onion?

However, given your description of how the satirist has structured their work to avoid any such ridicule, I have re-written a small portion of my text above to turn this piece into a proper piece of satire as you describe it using the Reagan piece as a template of sorts.

We are forced to see the villainy of the doctors and the fictional reporter and because we know the distinction between the fictional reporter and the onion writer, we retain our respect for the latter for his abusive satire of the former.

Well, as you can plainly see I have now shifted the focus to that of the fictional satirist for the purpose of exposing the cruelty of such work.  A noble position, no?

Your target on the other hand, was not intended as Savage or yourself, but Kennedy; a person just diagnosed with a brain tumor. As a result, we feel the same level of disgust towards the actual writer (you) that we feel towards the fictional writer in the Onion.

I don't believe that you can say who my target was (in the original piece) with any more certainty than you can the author of The Onion's piece.  I made it quite clear that I was writing this piece in response to similar pieces from the left, did I not?  As such my satirical target was clearly the other authors on the left, not Teddie himself. Teddie merely serves as the vehicle for my ridicule much as Reagan did in The Onion's piece ... per your analysis above.

So clearly you should, if you are true to your word, be "retain[ing] [y]our respect for [myself] for [my] abusive satire of the [the left wing satirists]".

Thoughts?

If the Islamo-terrorists get their way, stonings might make a comeback, who knows?

who's opinion I actually care about. There are a few others who shall remain nameless at this time to avoid playing favorites, but you make the short list.

I have thought about taking it down. I really have. At times I feel bad about writing it, but I did write it and so I also feel that it wouldn't be right to take it down.

Obviously I didn't write this piece to gain anyone's approval, least of all yours. I don't expect that you or anyone on the left would approve given the stated intent of the piece. In some weird twisted way the fact that you and others disapprove is a testament to the success of the piece in terms of meeting its objective of being vile.

Then I read and thought about independentminded's post above and the title that I gave to this diary, a Tribute to Ted Kennedy, and it occurred to me that a real tribute to Ted should include all sides of Ted and what people think about him. The good, the bad, AND the ugly.

Should we hide the ugly parts of how some people see Ted? I don't think so. I don't object to people writing nice things about Ted in the comments here. In fact I gave kudo's to independentminded for doing just that. So let's have a tribute that shows all sides of how Ted is viewed. I have provided the slime, you all provide the good stuff.

I'll tell you what, Specter, if you really feel that we should gloss over the baser perspectives on Ted Kennedy and paint a rosy picture of him simply because he happened to get sick, then respond to this post and if you ask me to after having considered the above I will voluntarily delete the diary as a favor to you (and the rest of the community, of course).  I leave the fate of this diary in your able hands.

Why should it matter who adds the disclaimer? Are you trying to shame me into conformance or something?

Strictly speaking, as far as this diary is concerned I AM the EDITOR! :) Doesn't that count?