> I am glad to see others are seeing my point.
Alas, I was insufficiently clear about my intent in my comment. I wasn't so much telling John what I thought of his work (although I did that later); I actually was making a statement about the fact that the Leftists are doing and saying things that are so outlandish and outrageous that they make it impossible to write satire about them.
John knows from my previous comments over many years, that when he's done a particularly good job of blurring the line between reality and satire, I jokingly "berate" him for not writing satire but only reporting the news. Unfortunately, without that background, you seem to have taken my comments literally, as if I was complaining about his style of satire. In fact, I was complimenting him.
That said, your point about the difficulty he faces ("Trying to satirize the left these days may be an impossible task. Satire needs an element of outrageousness (and humor) and the way things are going these days it is hard to keep up with the left.") is on the mark. You are quite right that one can't very well write satire about something that on its own reads like satire.
Satire defined: “A text that uses irony, derision, or wit to expose or attack human vice, foolishness, or stupidity.”
I believe my work uses irony, derision, and wit to expose and attack the vice, foolishness and stupidity of the left. It is not as silly-funny as some expect. Perhaps they are more familiar with parody which is defined as “a text that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect.”
While the left is idiotic it not comical. Their delusions are laughable, but not funny. Through my satire I hope to make them look as ridiculous as they really are.
Looks like I read too much into your comment and I apologize for dragging you into my criticism.