The concept of the correct amount of hostility is an interesting one to me. My post doesn't seem all that hostile to me, but I don't have many friends, maybe this is why.

Irregardless of hostility, necessary or unnecessary, in the original post I could see no indication of any reason to question Beck's editorial control over the chapter as quoted other than a distaste for being on the same team as Beck. It could just be me (which of course doesn't read on whether I'm correct or not) but I can't imagine such a comment questioning the authorship of a chapter like this if it had come from someone that isn't on the side of the "culture wars" that Beck is on.

I suppose I knew I was going to get negative karma from this post and considered not posting it for that reason, but you know, fuck it. I think its funny that essentially irrational motivations to form hypotheses about authorship are not more karma-objectionable than, more or less, laughing at the irrationality, the self-serving status self-justification of such plausibly (but not) rational objections.