Wherein a piece of my writing gets thoroughly analyzed by an English professor on Reddit:

"The thrust of the satire was to mirror the tragic or inspirational stories that people have been posting. Almost all the stories in the piece are meant to make you laugh at how ridiculous and infuriating they sound. When you arrive at Paul's section you have the same sob-story format but instead of making you laugh, it gives the reader pause and further supports the main ideal of OWS: that the system is rigged and corrupt while also demonstrating that it is not only ok, but vital to reach out to like-minded 1%ers even if you don't agree with everything single thing they say. The hopeless but honest idealism also provides a nice contrast and segue into Obama's hypocrisy. Which is a nice twist of the knife to drive the point home that this movement isn't and shouldn't be about reinforcing party lines. Like I said, it may disrupt the flow of the satire, but that's because the author's point was to show the larger implications of the problem. The point was to go deeper than just doing joke after joke. Daily Show does this all the time, where they end a hilarious bit on a slightly down note that drives home the fact that yes, this is funny, but also really sad given how fucked up things really are.

Then why is it in the middle? [regarding the Ron Paul section]

It's the second to last story segment. After that the tone and format changes fundamentally. The author stops using made up quotes and starts using real quotes. The first part is irony lightened with comedy and a recognizable pattern which transitions into black irony played straight. It reflects the tone shift you pointed out starting with the set up in the Paul section and climaxes with Obama's section. The last 3 paragraphs are the falling action and denouement building the tension back up tighter and tighter with the last line being a stinger loaded with an ironic double meaning and reinforcing the main theme."

Holy shit.