there are a number of voices out there that are often characterized as confrontational, revolutionary or counter-cultural.  whether hugo chavez's recent remarks at the united nations made you cringe or laugh so hard that coffee came out your nose, they are provocative.  you may choose to dismiss them out of hand, concluding that they are intended to be dramatic and attention-grabbing, and ultimately unserious.  but often they force you to think a bit more about how you feel about things.

if this article is correct, we will be losing daily access to a powerful voice that goes against the grain of our cultural norms and forces us to confront some of the things we often prefer not to think about.

there are many things that people think but don't express.  there are abundant sources of hypocrisy, both obvious and subtle. 

the union obviously supports people with strong voice and perspective, and magruder's got it.  yup.  you can disagree with his point of view or his characterization of facts but i think that to ignore him is to miss some valuable observations about our country.  there is no small degree of irony in the washington post reporting on this loss of a controversial voice after helping to marginalize that same voice by repeatedly dropping the strip.  anyone who has trolled their editorial page is aware that there's no lack of strong or counter-factual opinions being expressed in the paper.

i think we are all somewhat more impoverished when we lose resources such as this. 

- - - posted by scott (not be construed as reflecting the view of the union, my opinions only)