Mona, Mona, Bo Bona ... Posted by: McQ
on Saturday, February 10, 2007
Readers of QandO may have been asking themselves whatever happened to vagabond blogger and sometime commenter Mona (or maybe not) who, until Inactivist crashed, set up her snake pit over there.
Well she’s back and apparently the venom sacs have had plenty of time to refill. Unfortunately, her new forum is the once highly-regarded “Unqualified Offerings” hosted by Jim Henley. In the strictest sense of the words, however, Mona lives up to the blog’s name.
Why bother with her at all, you ask? Well, it’s instructive, for one reason. It’s funny for another. And, as you’ll see, Mona doesn’t do irony.
The scene is a post in which Mona goes after Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom. Apparently Dan Collins, a blogger at PW, has had some words for John Cole at Balloon Juice. Typical little blog-fight made all the merrier by the fact that Jeff and John actually correspond in the comment section of Protein Wisdom and, to all reasonable people, seem to be having fun teasing each other. In fact, Jeff ends up agreeing with John.
John Cole continues to feel the love from the authoritarian, war-mongering, “neo-libertarian” sites of which Protein Wisdom is one. Now a virtual moonbat is John, because “neo-libertarians” frequently conflate sensible right-libertarian perspectives like John’s with selling out to the treasonous enemy of All that Is True and Good. (His having voted for Democrats at the past ‘06 mid-terms is all a true patriot needs to know about Republican Mr. John Cole!).
Neolibertarians? How did we get into this?
Of course almost all us of can immediately spot the 3rd Grade calculus which Ms. Mona employs here. Take a simple back-and-forth between two blogs which disagree about Anna Nichole Smith coverage (!?) in the media and make it much more.
You do that by picking a group with which you disagree, out-of-the-blue, and demonize them by making false charges (authoritarian, war-mongering, “neo-libertarian”) about them. You then tie the group into the action by noting that one of the participants in this blog-fight is, horror of horrors, a member of that group (thereby tarring him with that broad straw brush you just made). You finish by conflating a simple blog-fight about something which has absolutely nothing to do with that group or its beliefs into some grand conspiracy in which a cabal of neolibertarian sites are alleged to be targeting John Cole.
I mean, my goodness, how do you not laugh? She ought to go into fiction for heaven sake. Children's fiction. They might be fooled.
But even something this transparent and lame has some amusement value to it if nothing else. There’s no question she learned the technique she employed at her master’s knee, but my guess is even he would find this attempt to be pathetic. Maybe she lost whatever edge she had during her layoff from Inactivist.
Heck, we’re the head site for neolibertarianism, run the Neolibertarian Network and until Mona let the cat out of the bag about the neolibertarian assault on Balloon Juice, we were completely unaware this was going on.
Who knew our minions had organized and were attacking poor John?
But the real hilarity began when Jeff found out that Mona was back in action and lobbing stink bombs in his direction. He took her to task:
Yes, Mona. I’m “incoherent.” My arguments make no sense. You can’t even begin to fathom them. They are all emotionally driven! No logic need apply!
You have me completely pegged.
Except you’ll note that I disagreed with Collins’ post in the comments. Just like you. So maybe I have my coherent moments after all.
And yes, Cole is now elevated to sensible conservatism — but only because his views are more in line with yours than mine. Don’t know that I’ve ever called him a traitor, though. Still, its odd how that works. Presumably I could become sensible should I just surrender what I believe and begin agreeing with you and Cole and Greenwald, et al.? Because honestly, I long for people like you to find me sensible.
Tell me — is disagreeing with Cole now a de facto charge that everything he is and everything he stands goes against “All that Is True and Good”? Because that sounds a bit ominous — this idea that disagreement with John Freaking Cole makes one a false prophet worthy of hellfire, especially coming from a REAL libertarian like you, Mona. And I’m surprised you failed to mention (you being the bringer of white hot Truth and all) that I’ve supported precisely one Republican Presidential candidate in my life — and that was Bush in ‘04. You know this, too, because I’ve mentioned it to you on several occasions.
But, well, doesn’t fit the caricature, I guess.
Sounds like the Mona I’ve come to know. Selective facts, purple prose, broad brushes and half-truths ... but Jeff goes on and this is where the fun really began:
Incidentally, are you ever going to start your own site, or are you content to just hop around sniping at people from other people’s sites?
I mean, first Greenwald, now Henley… Do you really need all these men to give you cover?
Come on, Mona! FREE YOURSELF FROM THE PATRIARCHY!
Knowing Jeff’s style, I was in stitches. Mona, however, responds in an obvious huff:
Jeff: I was at my “own site,” a group blog owned by Jon Henke, and I was one of Jon’s recruits.
One sentence and I’m laughing uncontrollably. One sentence and I'm searching for something to wipe the coffee off the screen. As should be obvious, Mona’s irony meter must be at the shop.
Who is Jon Henke? Anyone?
One of the major proponents of neolibertarianism last I looked. Yes, folks, Mona’s righteous anger and principles don't preclude her accepting gifts from those awful neolibertarians, if they benefit her, no matter how “authoritarian” and “war mongering” a group we may be.
Hilarious, for sure, but also typical of the new and soured Mona whose hate, vitriol and bitterness seem to be ever increasing while her coherence, readability, and credibility seem to be headed in precisely the opposite direction. It’s a pity she’ll probably take Jim Henley’s blog with her.
We can only hope John Edwards will take pity and hire her on as the third blogger for his campaign. She'd be perfect.
You seem to be trying to frame this as some sort of deal where Mona was part of our group here at QandO, and now we’ve had some sort of falling out.
But, Mona never posted at QandO. On the one or two occasions where Jon put up a guest post by her, I went straight for her in the comments sections. And, as far as Inactivist goes, McQ and I were never a part of that group.
I was a chief Mona opponent from day 1. I thought she was puerile and incendiary from the very beginning, and made no secret about it. She certainly wasn’t a part of "our group".
So, I gotta ask, what the hell are you talking about?
My favorite moment at Inactivist (I wish the archives were available) was just after she told me about how dear D.A. Ridgely was to her, she became engaged in claiming that Walter Williams was advocating genocide for Muslims. That he was actually advocating nuking the region.
Along with several others (including me) pointing out she was misrepresenting Williams D.A. came and tried to referee by pointing out that at minimum it wasn’t unreasonable to have a different conclusion about what he meant. That he himself hadn’t read Williams as implying anything along the lines of genocide or the death of millions of Muslims.
Whereupon Mona came back to her "dear friend" and said that no reasonable person could have any other conclusion. Needless to say D.A. was a bit taken aback being now in the unreasonable camp. I can’t say I have it perfectly verified, but I don’t think D.A. bothered taking her on in one her rants ever again. He realized there was no point. To disagree with Mona on her rants is to be a death loving warmonger, dear friend or not.
That being said, I realize others have commented on the Greenwaldian/Mona phenomenon more often than myself. Nevertheless, I think no one has so carefully examined his, and his minions, tactics as closely as I. I think I should get a mention and a small fee each time someone uses a term such as Greenwaldian in the future. I am searching for the appropriate regulatory body as we speak.
I also should add in Jon’s defense that he was trying to achieve some diversity of views. I don’t think he really expected Mona to be so dominant or so lack in collegiality. He also expected other people to blog more, and frankly, many didn’t because of the tone.
Jon gave it a try, it didn’t work out the way he expected. I don’t he should be criticized for that. I was no fan of Mona’s, but even I didn’t expect what she turned into with her own platform. Jim is making a mistake, but it his blog.
I also should add in Jon’s defense that he was trying to achieve some diversity of views.
Perhaps, but as you say I doubt he really understood what he was in for, myself.
It was, in fact those posts, that led me to question not only Hanke’s sincerity about his stated political positions, but his sanity, as well.
One of MY stated concerns with Jon the time was that the far too frequently leaned to the left. very little, in any of the discussions that he and I subsequently had to that observation, changed my mind about it. Then, as if to confirm all of that, he starts posting the ravings of a left wing nut case… Mona… and seemingly signing onto it. As Bruce now says… you don’t do that with just anyone. As a result, to say I had my doubts, would be understating the matter by an order of scale.
But this kind of (current) event was precisely why I was angry at the time; My vision keeps coming back to Bush 41 compromising with the Democrats and then getting beat up in the election of 92 over that compromise by those selfsame Democrats. No connection, other than the concept involved; It comes down to a matter of judgment about who you sign on with , and who you compromise with for fear of it biting you in the end. As I tried, ineffectively, to say at the time.
On other part of the point I was trying to make at the time is a point that McQ touches on now; "It’s a pity she’ll probably take Jim Henley’s blog with her. "
Well, honestly, Henley started downhill some months ago... he’s been off my daily read for over a year now. And Mona seems a perfect fit for that situation.
But.... My fear was the same kind of motion for Q&O... which I still hold in high regard.... Foutunate that things didn’t go as badly as I feared.
Indeed, the worst of it, purely from my own perspective, is that some never really did understand the point that I was trying to make about it all. They still may not, I dunno... (shrug) But no matter.... sometimes that happens. I suppose there will be some who will never understand the point which I trying to make about that, and so be it. But there it is.
In any event, I’m glad to see that when this finally came full circle, nobody at Q&O was worse for it.
After all you guys made the mistake of bloging with the womyn, now you’ve got a pyscho ex-bloggger out there....
"Us guys" didn’t do anything. Neither McQ nor I had anything to do with Jon posting stuff from Mona, nor were we consulted about it. That’s not the way QandO runs. We don’t ask permission from the other guys to do anything.
And when Mona’s posts appeared, I felt no hesitation in attacking her in the comments.
It was, in fact those posts, that led me to question not only Hanke’s sincerity about his stated political positions, but his sanity, as well.
Wow, that’s a pretty strong charge. You’re questioning Henke’s sanity and political acumen? Why is that exactly? Because he dared to explore different points of view? Jon decided to give Mona some rope, and what was the harm in it? Just because you disgaree with her, you decide it’s appropriate to malign Jon. Nice. That’s fair, seeing as he’s now working for the team that you unerringly pimp for, and thus is not available to defend himself, you may as well take a potshot at his sanity and integrity.
That’s about as low as it gets, Bithead. Frankly, you owe him and QandO an apology.
And where do you get off opining on Jon’s sanity anyway, Bithead? What makes you the arbiter of what’s sane or not? Certainly not the ridiculously sycophantic comments you leave here.
As I recall, Henke only allowed Mona to drive once here, and gauging from the reaction, she piloted QandO rather poorly.
As someone who has long detested Mona’s holier than thou proclamations, Michael finally gives me an entry point on this thread. Michael’s right bithead, that was a gratuitous shot at Henke. And while I may agree that Jon’s arguments of late (well before he took the Allen gig) have been flavored with semantic tricks more typical of the left (minor differences between Gitmo and the Soviet Gulags or coercive interrogation techniques as torture), questioning his sanity is a bit much. We already know that the left is far too willing to "eat their own", let’s not follow that lead.
Wow, that’s a pretty strong charge. You’re questioning Henke’s sanity and political acumen?
That charge would apply to anyone leaning left as far and as often, particularly while under the flag of ’libertarian’.
As to the question of what was the harm... I think I explored that, some... we see some of the answer to your question, today. All without my having to lift a finger.
Certainly not the ridiculously sycophantic comments you leave here.
An interesting statement from someone who in the para previous said "What makes you the arbiter...."
As for his new position and your apparently finding conflict between my post on Jon and my postings on the Republican Party, you ...as usual... have it dead wrong. Perhaps you’d be interested in what had to say on the topic of his new position when it came up... it may explain something to you.
If you get nothing else from that post, get this:
It’s as I said before; It has been and always will be about the ideas. That goes for him or anyone else. When I have gone after Jon, it’s been about the ideas. I hold neither love, nor hate for Henke, any more than I hold particular love or hate for the Republican party. Rather, I see the Republican party at the moment to be the best tool in efforts to defeat America’s worst enemy; the Democrats. To the end that Jon’s advice strengthens those tools, the better off America will be for it. But that doesn’t mean that I’m going to agree with him at all times, as I’ve tried to explain to you previously. When I disagree, you will know about it, and trust me, so will he… as he will when I agree. As I said before, that’s how this game gets played. America is better for it.
"...Mona whose hate, vitriol and bitterness seem to be ever increasing while her coherence, readability, and credibility seem to be headed in precisely the opposite direction."
I regret that I was so tolerant of her posts and comments here. Which brings me to state that the quality of the leftie commenting here has gone up dramatically from the Mona days. Except for Mr. Day. His content, what little there is of it, is OK. His manner of expression and vocabulary? He writes like a fugitive from one of the colorful nutroots sites. I would think, if he were really trying to communicate something, he would express the leftie article of faith that one should be tolerant of different cultures and therefore speak to us in a language that we can understand. As it is, he is usually just dumping his frustrated bucket; and not too intelligibly at that.
No THAT would be kewlllllll. Right now Erb gets to hang up by the rail waiting to swoop down on the Roller Ball Carrier. IF he posted he’d be Jonathan E. and we could swoop on him....and he won’t have Moon Pie blocking for him.
Offering Mona the opportunity to post on QandO was a grave mistake. Offering Professor Erb the same opportunity would probably be the same grave mistake. Both posts would be subject to the same problem: "Oh, goody, now I can have a larger audience for the same crap that I have been tossing off in the comments section." However, in the case of Professor Erb, I think that there is an off chance that he, being an academic, would pause to ask himself if he shouldn’t be a little more responsible and post something that had some credibility in the real world (as opposed to the world of LN, in which most of his prior comments have been couched). Having said that; do I (or anyone else in the real world) give a sh*t about what he has to say?