Anyway, yes, get out the vote. If I didn’t live in another country and support you more in spirit and in argument than in my daily efforts, I’d place a few calls myself as I did during our recent Canadian election (in person, not over the phone).

Good luck! I think that Tuesday will be a better day than the GOP has any right to expect.

I don’t intend anything I wrote as criticism of Mary Katharine Ham.

The first TV appearance I saw her in was substandard, the second, the very next one, was extraodinary. Massive improvement. I hope she will continue to mark herself as a serious commentator.

Christoph on November 5, 2006 at 12:38 AM

I do too, infidel, because I will live in this world, either in Canada or Australia, and I love my honey to bits. The more secure the world is for her the better.

Christoph on November 5, 2006 at 12:45 AM

Fair enough about fogw; you didn’t see his questions about why you removed his comment and I can’t give an opinion on his comment since I didn’t see it.

The fact is I have no desire (as opposed to random thoughts provoked by her provocative ad) to do anything to Mary Katharine Ham, it was an adverb.

I’m sure Michelle would come down on your side because, as I noted above, she’s more conservative in a sexual sense.

I’m pointing out that somewhat ribald (and very mildly at that) adjectives are to be expected when making ads of that nature.

The entire blog goes on about, “Bethany is so hot, MHK, is so fine, that lady on the view is too, etc.,” and I don’t usually because I don’t care.

But if you do an ad yourself, Allahpundit, where you dress up like a late night male model looking for a partner for a casual fling, don’t be surprised if I or someone apply words to you they would not otherwise — without your action.

Christoph on November 5, 2006 at 1:37 AM

Put another way… and I’ll leave it here since I understand your point of view too and see it as valid… I knew I was pushing the envelope a bit and partly did it to make a point since I anticipated this follow up criticism… is that if a woman who is very beautiful and well dressed is talking about a serious topic I may, may compliment her appearance, but I won’t go on about how sexy she looks… but if a woman does a mock ad with herself as the subject imitating blatant late night sexual come-ons, then I will feel more liberated.

Christoph on November 5, 2006 at 1:43 AM

No, Scot, I saw it as just a funny little vid to boost the morale of Republicans. One that due to its topic opens the subject to mildly worded ribald compliments.

I doubt she would have said more than, “Down boy.”

Christoph on November 5, 2006 at 2:20 AM

fogw, AP hasn’t threatened to ban you. He just removed a post that he found over the line. I understand his thinking.

I’d have to see how you worded it to understand whether I agree with him or not.

If it could be construed as endorsing a journalist’s beheading — when journalists are in danger of being beheaded — then for ethical and legal reasons I’d have to agree with him.

I watched a horrible video of Eugene Armstrong being beheaded yesterday. I recommend you never ever watch one of those… more than once.

It isn’t a laughing matter. When I call for someone’s beheading, I’m serious.

Christoph on November 5, 2006 at 2:21 PM

fogw, Hot Air is not a free speech zone. In fact, I somewhat tongue-in-cheek (but without anyone even mentioning that I should be banished) criticized Michelle for being so hard core about YouTube’s banning her video, when her own site’s Terms of Use are more restrictive.

You said:

“I always thought that HotAir was a site where people came to freely express their opinions.”

But Hot Air’s Terms of Use say:

“We reserve the right to delete your comments or revoke your registration for any reason. Rarely, if ever, will we do so simply because we disagree with you. We will, however, usually do so if you post something that is, in our good-faith opinion, (a) off-topic; (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws; or (c) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise promote goods and services.”

and

“We value your opinion and are happy to provide you with a forum in which to express it, but if you abuse our hospitality or use our site to injure someone, don’t be surprised if we throw you out.”

No one has threatened to throw you out, but due to an abundance of caution (and Allahpundit is at heart a cautious guy, I think he would admit) he chose to remove a single comment of yours as he did of mine.

I never said he didn’t have the right in my case, just that MHK’s video opened the door to certain comments that would never have been voiced otherwise. And that this was predictible.

Anyway, if AP thought your comment violated the above Terms of Use that I highlighed, do you not see that:

a) agree or disagree, his decision is defensible?
b) you have no free speech rights per se here?

I make the argument rhetorically about free speech, as did Michelle Malkin at YouTube, and it’s reasonable to do so. It certainly doesn’t exist in law though.

And while I defend your privilege to speak here in principle, it’s tougher to stand by your side when you offer such anti-zingers as:

“You have convicted me without letting the jury see the evidence.”

You have been convicted of what exactly? How can Allahpundit allow us to see the evidence used in your “conviction” without republishing material he believes violated his site’s Terms of Use and that might violate or encourage others to violate the law or jeopardize Mr. Gregory’s safety?

I’m going to create a link. Content warning. It will likely be the worst thing you have ever seen in your life so far.

After watching this link, please come back and tell me whether you think jokes about beheading American journalists are funny or whether they are over the line.

If you don’t watch the link, and I understand that, then please drop this issue and respect AP’s decision.

→ link

[content warning... do not click without first reading the above; I seriously advise against clicking the link — it is a video of an American being beheaded]

Christoph on November 5, 2006 at 2:48 PM