A work of satire is made, in my opinion, when an issue is taken beyond logical ends but not overdone. When a satire becomes overdone, it resembles a Flame in many ways.
For example, examine Johnathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels. This work is a satire in many aspects, in fact all aspects, of British society. working through many different sub-stories, it pulls and tugs in small ways a the limits of believabily to make points.
For example, the the Whinnies and the Yahoos. This is a discussion of what exactly encompasses "civilized" virtures and what are "brutal" ones, and how the brutal ones are always present, no matter what we may want, even in "civilized" society. Lilliput, the land where our hero is a giant among pigmies (i think... or is it the reverse?), talks about the sheer stupidity behind the moral reasoning behind war, and by extension, many other morally justified things. <insert name here>, where our hero is a pygmy among giants, illustrates the ability of a society to operate without police forces, laws, intimidation, or violence. All this attacked British society, but all did it tactfully, without sounding cynical and sarcastic.
And that, friends, is the true difficulty behind satire. It can be very, very good if correctly written- that is, if you tug believablility just enough, if you emphasize only one satirical aspect at a time, etc. It can also be very bad, if the writer simply decides to flame, whine, complain, be overly sarcastic, etc. Walking that fine line is not easy, but what results can be either bright or grim; if it sticks in people's minds, it's probably a good place to start.
