All very true. To be fair, though, I'd like to point out that Ann doesn't really specialize in intellectual debate. Don't get me wrong: she has a powerful intellect, which she focuses quite effectively on her work, but her essays aren't really what you'd call "intellectual". She makes too extensive use of exaggeration, for an intellectual debate to be possible. But that's okay with me. I don't read her for intellectual effect; I have other places to go for that. I read her for comedy effect, of the "it's funny because [I think] it's true" variety.
I'd really like to know what some others have to say about the thesis of this piece, though.
