I Call, Show Your Hand
Jan 25, 07 | 1:41 pm by Joshua HolmesFrom Beck:
[Howard Dean] — and all like him — have been playing a game of studied ignorance ever since about three days after 9/11, in order to not grasp the facts and implications of a stridently anti-American Saddam’s Iraq in the wake of everything that made up 9/11. The fact that George Bush made a bloody hash out of the problem in his pre-war arguments as well as in having anything to do with post-Saddam Iraq politics does not relieve Howard Dean — or anybody else — of the responsibility to grasp the facts that added up to nothing but the imperative to destroy Saddam.
(emphasis his)
Let’s see those facts that made it an imperative for me to be compelled to assist in attacking Iraq.
January 25th, 2007 at Jan 25, 07 | 9:28 pm
Beck said it was imperative to destroy Saddam, which does not strictly imply it necessary to compel you or anyone to assist.
My thoughts when I read that entry by BecK were: Imperative for whom? Was it an imperative for Beck? If so, what did he do to destroy Saddam?
For myself, I never thought I needed Saddam destroyed.
I don’t see how Beck’s own individual life was improved by the toppling of Saddam. Isn’t that supposed to be the standard of a rational egoist?
January 25th, 2007 at Jan 25, 07 | 9:29 pm
Statement 1: “It is imperative that you help destroy Saddam.”
Statement 2: “It is imperative that you be compelled to help destroy Saddam.”
There’s an important difference here.
January 26th, 2007 at Jan 26, 07 | 1:02 am
Is there?
January 26th, 2007 at Jan 26, 07 | 7:38 am
Strictly speaking yes, as I acknowledged above, but not for the conservatives Beck continues to court. This is a way of playing to them.
January 26th, 2007 at Jan 26, 07 | 12:15 pm
jacobinites beware! beck is nice.
concerned lung
January 26th, 2007 at Jan 26, 07 | 12:27 pm
1. Since Beck explicitly and repeatedly rejects the sort of compulsion Holmes is talking about, this is, to say the least, a non-issue.
2. Beck is not “courting” anyone if he sincerely believes that Saddam Hussein needed to go. What is he supposed to do - conceal this belief so that he can never be accused of collaborating with or “courting” the hated conservative revisionist running dogs? Solidarity forever!
January 26th, 2007 at Jan 26, 07 | 8:22 pm
Silly me, when Beck said “anti-American” and referenced 9/11 twice, I somehow thought he meant the US by “imperative”. He probably meant, oh, I dunno, Denmark.
January 26th, 2007 at Jan 26, 07 | 10:16 pm
John,
People do make arguments that contradict other positions they hold, even Beck. Josh’s conclusion is reasonable. Consider this line of reasoning:
1) There was an imperative to destroy Saddam. (Beck’s premise)
2) Thew was only one agency that could do so.
3) Therefore it was imperative that the agency be employed to destroy Saddam.
4) By it’s nature that agency compels Josh.
5) Therefore it was imperative that Josh be compelled in order to destroy Saddam.
Else how is the imperative achieved?
As to courting, conservatives like Martin McPhillips and Kim DuToit go off on Beck when he engages them on foundational principles. Entries like the one Josh has noted are great for mending fences with them - they get to conclude, by a plausible chain of reasoning very like the one I gave above, that when push comes to shove Beck is really on the same page with them.
January 28th, 2007 at Jan 28, 07 | 2:20 am
Kennedy, you insolent drip: if you knew anything about my correspondance with the people you’re talking about — which in the case of du Toit has been non-existent for months now — then you might know what you’re talking about, but you don’t, so shut the fuck up.
January 28th, 2007 at Jan 28, 07 | 4:15 pm
Beck,
Saddam’s destruction was imperative for whom? That’s the question on the table.
Of course I don’t know what goes on in your private email. And I didn’t mean to imply that you were continuing to beg Kim with this particular post. Du Toit is just an example of a conservative who will eat this stuff up as long as you pipe down about principles , because it seems to imply that when push comes to shove they’re right about needing this state - the only existing agency that can satisfy your imperative.
January 28th, 2007 at Jan 28, 07 | 6:09 pm
Beck,
What are “the facts that added up to nothing but the imperative to destroy Saddam”?
February 4th, 2007 at Feb 04, 07 | 10:40 am
“I don’t see how Beck’s own individual life was improved by the toppling of Saddam. Isn’t that supposed to be the standard of a rational egoist?”
As certainly I oppose the war in Iraq and the excuses made for it -lies all-, I wonder…what if Mr Beck considers his life was improved by toppling of Saddam? Or you pretend to define what is “improving life” for Beck, Mr Kennedy?
February 5th, 2007 at Feb 05, 07 | 10:01 am
“I wonder…what if Mr Beck considers his life was improved by toppling of Saddam?’
Then he should be able to explain how.
February 5th, 2007 at Feb 05, 07 | 6:46 pm
(Sorry to be off-topic, but this is what happens when you include fabulous pin-up models on your home page.)
So, um . . . who is the fabulous pin-up model on your home page?
February 10th, 2007 at Feb 10, 07 | 10:35 am
I think it’s possible to claim that one judges something to be of value in some fuzzy, ill-defined way. After all, few of us indeed are rational ubermenchen like Kennedy. The problem with that sort of admission though is that it’s essentially copping to emotional satisfaction, and Beck is fronting like he’s offering a rational argument for Saddam’s disposal.
February 13th, 2007 at Feb 13, 07 | 3:30 pm
Why does Beck get his own category? I want one!
February 14th, 2007 at Feb 14, 07 | 9:15 pm
Ghertner,
Maybe if you blogged more…
February 17th, 2007 at Feb 17, 07 | 1:58 pm
Kennedy:
Why Beck or anybody give you a reason for their private preferences?
February 17th, 2007 at Feb 17, 07 | 2:26 pm
For the same reason I have to answer your question.
February 17th, 2007 at Feb 17, 07 | 8:22 pm
And Micha, be careful what you wish for!
March 8th, 2007 at Mar 08, 07 | 8:28 pm
Mch> Why ds Bck gt hs wn ctgry? wnt n!
Jst n cs Jhn’s vwl-rmvng rtn dsn’t nrf thm frm th jmp, ‘ll d t fr y’ll:
Bcs Knndy’s bldy scnd-hndr, tht’s why.
March 9th, 2007 at Mar 09, 07 | 8:35 am
This is off-topic and for anyone:
Why in the hell are libertarians, especially Austrians, still in love with Ayn Rand? She is the lowest and most brutal thing ever to happen to the movement.
The Randroids speak:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/006336.asp
March 9th, 2007 at Mar 09, 07 | 9:23 am
That’s pretty funny Mike, but technically aren’t you banned?
March 9th, 2007 at Mar 09, 07 | 11:34 am
Oh, yeah, that’s love.
March 10th, 2007 at Mar 10, 07 | 10:04 am
Long-time readers not familiar with the details of Schneider’s ban ought to contemplate the level of offense necessary to get punted from No-Treason’s comments. For perspective, both Meaghan Walker-Williams and Stephan Kinsella are still welcome to drop by.
March 12th, 2007 at Mar 12, 07 | 3:45 am
Lopez. To speak of the demon is to call her into existence