Editor's Note from The Moderate Voice: "The title and URL for this post has been changed from the original."

Ha ha ha. I've got to go after the so-called Moderate Voice again. (Click on the tag below for past dustups.)

Among my many Google alerts — used to turn up bloggable things — is the phrase "freedom from religion." Sorting through my email this morning, I find a hit from The Moderate Voice, with the squib:

In my mind, this says that “freedom from religion” is a more important freedom than “freedom of religion”. Therefore I doubt that the Supreme Court will ...

I click over and see "New title: 'Anti-Abortion Group Gets Organized in Florida'":

"The title and URL for this post has been changed from the original."

Oh, what was the old title? Aha! It will be in that gmail. I click back. Ah ha ha ha ha: "The American Taliban Is Coming to Florida."

Moderate Voice. Calling pro-lifers "American Taliban."

It's a crap post too, by one Kathy Kattenburg. It's 1 sentence of original writing followed by a dump of an entire 349-word Orlando Sentinel news article. From the Sentinel:

A nationwide anti-abortion group launched an effort in Florida Friday to outlaw all abortions and certain types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and the morning-after pill.

The religion-infused movement, called “Personhood Florida,” would define conception in Florida’s constitution at the “biological beginnings,” supporters said — when the sperm meets the egg....

Religion-infused... So now, when activists have a religious motivation for the political change they want — even though they aren't trying to force anyone to follow a religion but are only seeing secular laws that accord with their religious beliefs — they are "religion-infused," and a blog that self-approvingly deems itself the Moderate Voice will call them "Taliban"?

You realize that by that standard — if it were applied neutrally — Martin Luther King, Jr. would have to be called "Taliban." But, of course, I don't think TMV would apply the standard neutrally. Which is an additional reason why "moderate" is a deceptive label.

***

By the way, who is Kathy Kattenburg? And why is she a Moderate Voice author? I don't know. And I looked on the TMV About the Authors page. She's not there. Doesn't someone have to have a moderate voice or a commitment to couching her opinions in a moderate voice to be given access to posting on The Moderate Voice? Oh, it all comes back to me now. There's some concept over there that a mix of extreme voices on difference sides averages out to moderate. If that's "moderate," then the most viciously fought debates are moderate. Sigh.

"Hello Ms. Althouse. My name is Tyrone Steels II and I am the site/server administrator (and sometimes co-blogger) of The Moderate Voice..."

Oh, no. It's what you might call The Moderate Email...from Tyrone Steels II (if that is his real name)...

As a regular reader of your blog...

I'll bet.

... I was disappointed...

Oh? You had such hopes for me, didn't you?

... when you attributed the post "Whole Food Boycott Picks Up Steam" to TMV writers. Editor-in-chief regularly posts "Guest Voice" posts on the site.

Well, then editor-in-chief must have thought he had something that fit in the place he calls The Moderate Voice.

The post was clearly identified as a Guest Voice and not a regular TMV contributor. Mr. Gandelman likes posting "Guest Voices" to stir the pot, if you will (Michael Reagan has been posted many times as a "Guest Voice").

To stir the pot, if you will... (What if I won't?) Stirring the pot is consistent with voice moderation? It's fine if "Mr. Gandelman" does whatever he likes, but I like saying when the name of a blog doesn't fit with what goes on under that name.... whether you will or not.

The Moderate Voice as [sic] many writers. Some conservative and some liberal. We don't hold writers [sic] feet to the fire but there have [sic] been a larger percentage of the liberal viewpoint rather than the conservative viewpoint recently. This is simply due to conservative writers not posting as much. So the site does tilt but it isn't an intentional thing. But that is regarding the regular writers, not "Guest Voices".

It's not my job to monitor your site, but my impression is that it leans left, as I think you are conceding. But I don't care about that. I was talking about moderation of the voice, and the way saying someone "shot his company in the face" is not a moderate way to speak.

In the future, if you could, please distinguish between "Guest Voices" and regular writers at The Moderate Voice?

No. If you put up a post, it's part of your blog. It's under the name "The Moderate Voice," and if I want to say a post on that blog is inconsistent with the name of the blog, I will say just that — and I'll give you a link. If you want some disclaimer, put it where you want on your blog, as big as you want it. I'm not cluttering my posts with hedging that doesn't mean anything to me. I linked. That's what I give you.

I think it would be beneficial to all bloggers to be very clear who they are agreeing or disagreeing with so their aren't any misunderstandings.

I'll be the judge of what's beneficial to me and my readers. If you don't want a writer associated with the name of your blog, don't let them post on your blog. The details of which writers you're vouching for and which are there to "stir the pot" are your business, not mine. I linked. That's the blogging ethic, in my view. My readers click on the link and can see what I'm talking about. If you haven't made it clear, you fix it.

Thank you very much and keep up the great writing!

Oh, ridiculous. You give a damn about my writing?

Tyrone Steels II
Chief Technology Officer
ENXIT Group, LLC " Equity Opportunity For The New Century"......
Office: (678) 701-XXXX
Fax: (678) 954-XXXX
tyrone.steels@XXXX.com
URL: www.enxit.com

Okay, why is the Chief Technology Officer guy schooling me on blogging ethics? And ENXIT? What is it? I go to the URL:

Enx·it [eng-zit, enk-sit]

1. An act of entering
2. A way or passage out
3. A combination of entrance and exit point(s).

So... they don't know if they are coming or going? (Like this?)

The Enxit Group L.L.C. was created out of a group of ideas formulated at the virtual consortium SEMTAN Media in late 2005. The theme of Enxit was developed around a requirement to incorporate flexibility into a commerce model and endeavor which could identify and manage opportunities employing technological antecedents to improve efficiency. The Enxit Group is deigned to be facilitate PEST [political, economic, socio-cultural, and technological] antecedents which are rapidly integrating our global society, creating equity for all participants.

And I am deigned to be damned if I know what the hell you are talking about, but.... thank you very much and keep up the great writing!

ADDED: I had what was for me a very memorable run-in with The Moderate Voice back in November 2006: "So much for moderation.... I think Joe [Gandelman] had a nice blog going, one that lived up to its title. Maybe it's not a good idea to have a blog title that makes such a distinct claim, but...."

The so-called "Moderate Voice" supports the Whole Foods boycott.

At what point does that blog's name move from being laughable to outright irritating?

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey shot his company in the face the other day with an anti-health care op-ed screed in the Wall Street Journal. He’s managed to piss off his company’s core demographic: liberals and progressives, and in the process, enabled a boycott that could actually work.

"Shot his company in the face"? "Piss off"? Even if you don't have moderate opinions, shouldn't your "voice" — your rhetorical style — at least be moderate if you're going to call yourself The Moderate Voice. Or was it always sarcasm? You shot your blog in the face. I can say that, because I've never leveraged my reputation with a claim that I'm putting my opinions — which actually are moderate — in a moderate voice — which I think is something to do to the extent that you choose, not to claim to do. But damn, if you're going to claim to do it, you'd better do it. You're pissing me off.

While I don’t normally support boycotts (for the most part, I don’t think they’re terribly well organized or impactful), this one is different, and I do believe it can be very effective.

(Hot link added by me.)

Here’s why: Whole Foods has always marketed itself to a fairly educated and financially secure customer base. This is why they can successfully sell healthy (and primarily organic) foods, at a higher cost. The company has also fostered the image that it has an altruistic streak in supporting progressive causes.

With a single op-ed in an uber conservative national newspaper, this wholesome image has been blown to bits. In the course of writing 1,165 words, CEO Mackey has caused more potential damage to the Whole Foods corporate image than an e-coli outbreak in the meat room.

What? Did you even read the op-ed you are shitting on? Since when is supporting ill-formed, sprawling legislative reform the be-all and end-all of wholesomeness?

In calling for support of the boycott of Whole Foods, I’m making an educated guess that their average customer is very politically progressive in nature. And that is why, if liberals and progressives quit shopping at Whole Foods, the impact would be quickly apparent to the company’s Board of Directors. By quickly, I mean by this coming Monday morning when the weekend receipts are tallied.

What delusion! I'll bet the liberals and progressives keep going to Whole Foods, which is about a high-quality selection of goods sold in a pleasant, slightly posh environment. I don't think people are going there to make a political statement, and I don't think people will boycott it to make a political statement — or at least not to make a statement about their support for health care reform, which, you may note, people are not fired up about. People are fired up against the legislation, and Whole Foods may gain some new customers, but we longtime Whole Foods shoppers go there for personal benefit and indulgence (which may include a smidgen of feeling good about greenness and "fair trade").

On a lighter note, take a few minutes and read the Whole Foods website forums on this topic. The forums have been invaded by freepers and redstaters, with predictably resultant hilarity. If one was to believe the freepers, Whole Foods is going to have an entirely new demographic shopping in their stores. The only problem is: last I checked, Whole Foods doesn’t stock Coke, Cheetos, Armor hotdogs, or 365-brand Instant Grits.

There's your comedy in a "moderate voice." And of course, Whole Foods does sell cola, cheese puffs, hotdogs, and grits.

UPDATE: We just went to Whole Foods to get our favorite bread — "Seeduction" — and picked up a few other things — for $80+. Not making a political statement. Just doing what we would have done anyway. And, of course, the place was packed as usual — here in lefty Madison. It occurred to me that the boycott will not only fail, it will backfire. Whole Foods shoppers won't give up their pleasure easily. If they are pushed to boycott, they will want to read the Mackey op-ed, and if they do that, they will see it is a brilliant and specific analysis that is stunningly better thought-out than what we are hearing from Obama and the Democrats. Moreover, once they do that, they should be outraged — or at least annoyed — by those who called for a boycott, who sought to enforce such strict obedience to the particular of legislation that the Democrats in Congress have been trying to ram through. Maybe some of the people who want to support Obama and the Democrats will stop and think for themselves about what health care reform should be.

Bill O'Reilly in 2007: "No question Dr. Tiller has blood on his hands."

"But now so does Governor Sebelius. She is not fit to serve. Nor is any Kansas politician who supports Tiller's business of destruction. I wouldn't want to be these people if there is a Judgment Day. I just -- you know ... Kansas is a great state, but this is a disgrace upon everyone who lives in Kansas. Is it not?"

Gabriel Winant writes:

This characterization of Tiller fits exactly into ancient conservative, paranoid stories: a decadent, permissive and callous elite tolerates moral monstrosities that every common-sense citizen just knows to be awful. Conspiring against our folk wisdom, O'Reilly says, the sophisticates have shielded Tiller from the appropriate, legal consequences for his deeds. It's left to "judgment day" to give him what's coming.

So now that Tiller has been murdered, does O'Reilly have blood on his hands?

Joe Gandelman says:

This does not mean there is a cause and effect between O’Reilly’s rhetoric and Tiller’s murder...

But... the over the top, demonizing rhetoric that has become the rage in 21st century America could have serious consequences....

Vigorous, heated discussion isn’t the same as demonization. And demonization has become the way to garner huge viewerships and readerships. But if issues are framed in terms of good versus evil some people could act.

I think Joe is saying that O'Reilly has blood on his hands.... although Joe avoids using the "demonizing" rhetoric that in his calculation is what makes you responsible for the actions your words inspire. Perhaps he means to invoke the First Amendment idea that lets us punish speech that creates a "clear and present danger." "Vigorous, heated debate" is important and protected. But there is a line that can be crossed, and Joe says it's "demonization." And O'Reilly demonized Tiller. So, Joe, could you spell it out? You meant to say that O'Reilly is morally responsible for Tiller's death, right?

Andrew Sullivan says:

O'Reilly demonized Tiller on 28 episodes of his show. I have no doubt his words wil be played endlessly on cable in some kind of hideous irony. This really could be the end to O'Reilly's dangerous, demonizing game.

What exactly does Sullivan mean? That O'Reilly should be shut down? That people should hold him responsible for murder and — what? — stop watching? I doubt if he means that O'Reilly will see the light and, on his own, decide to tone his routine down.

Is there now to be an argument that decent people who are anti-abortion cannot make strongly passionate statements in support of their cause — that they are linked to murder if they do? I don't think that's fair.

But very strongly stated arguments often backfire. You might want to refrain from making them. Consider this pro-abortion rights argument by Ric Caric:

[G]ive credit to George Tiller for being a courageous man and making an important contribution to human welfare. Abortion is a crucially important social asset as well as a legal right in American society. The fact that women are not forced to carry pregnancies to term has helped open up tremendous new vistas of freedom for American women and has been an incalculable benefit to our society as a result.... Given that the material in a pregnant woman's uterus is a "fetus," a woman has as much right to control and/or dispose of that material as she has a right to contraception, regulating her periods, or anything else to do with gynecological health. As a result, there should be more abortions in this country rather than less....

George Tiller deserves a lot of credit for performing abortions at all.... But he especially deserves credit for continuing to perform abortions and late-term abortions after the first armed attack on him.... But he kept providing abortion services to women in Kansas despite the vigilante death sentence hanging over his head. It's significant that Tiller died while attending a Christian church, the Reformation Lutheran Church of Wichita, Kansas. Not unlike Jesus, he died for the benefit of others.

Caric's argument would be more effective without the extreme rhetoric about "that material" and Jesus. But, I assume, like O'Reilly he wants us to pay attention to him. And I just have.

Is Rush Limbaugh really that hard to understand?

Some perfectly intelligent folks just don't see where the jokes are.

Visualizing political bias.

An extension that color-codes the blogs at Memeorandum.

Memeorandum is my favorite place to start when looking for political stories to blog about. It's a (somewhat lazy) way to see what everybody's talking about at the moment. With this extension you can see... well, what exactly are you seeing?

The colors don’t necessarily represent each blogger’s personal views or biases. It’s a reflection of their linking activity. The algorithm looks at the stories that blogger’s linked to before, relative to all other bloggers, and groups them accordingly. People that link to things that only conservatives find interesting will be classified as bright red, even if they are personally moderate or liberal, and vice-versa. The algorithm can't read minds, so don't be offended if you feel misrepresented. It's only looking at the data.

The Moderate Voice notes its dark blue identification. And I come out bright red. [CORRECTION: I'm merely pink. I MEAN: I'm at the mid-level of redness.] So, what to do with this information? Maybe I'll try, when I go to Memeorandum, to pick more "blue" stories...