Video: Mary Katharine Ham talks sexual deviants on O’Reilly

posted at 10:03 pm on July 25, 2007 by Allahpundit

The fun quotient of these segments hinges on how savory the sites are that they’re discussing. If they’re filthy and/or dangerous, MK spends five minutes nodding along with Bill’s assessment that they’re filthy and/or dangerous. If they’re borderline, she gets to bust his chops and exploit the generation gap for a bit of “you’re out of touch, man” repartee.

Guess which side of the line this one falls on. Oof.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ha! You did it too!

see-dubya on July 25, 2007 at 10:05 PM

They were discussing Michael Moore?

andycanuck on July 25, 2007 at 10:08 PM

Did what?

Allahpundit on July 25, 2007 at 10:09 PM

I don’t know why but, I get the feeling that Officer O’Reilly is not real big on the Hammer. Some level of tension there. Seems like she has this nervous laugh thing and shifts in her seat a bit. I have no idea why I feel the need to point this out. In any case I think we need more MKH. Smart, classy, and a charming southern belle. Be nice Bill.

D0WNT0WN on July 25, 2007 at 10:10 PM

The rat site should be closed down and such “public” information limited to in person research. Otherwise, it is just a hit-man-enabler site.

And a public danger.

profitsbeard on July 25, 2007 at 10:12 PM

Did you wipe out the rest of the Blog column, Allah?

See-Dub did it while he was subbin.

Bad Candy on July 25, 2007 at 10:18 PM

I caught it, and the conversation was predictable. The lovely MKH mostly nodding as Papa Bear gave the sites their just thrashing. It was an interesting segment however regarding the Rat site. I’d never heard of it and wonder how many others have. If someone is truly interested in going after informants, don’t they have accesss to that information anyway? The mob never had trouble getting to it, or the informants. Anyway, it is troubling.

thedecider on July 25, 2007 at 10:20 PM

Why aren’t informants confidential?

peacenprosperity on July 25, 2007 at 10:31 PM

They are sometimes confidential, in extreme cases, and when they have to enter witness protection. A lot of times, though, their involvement is known to those involved in the case. The web site basically takes all the public info available about informants and combines it w the wisdom of crowds, so you can end up getting very specific info about these guys. Some judges are trying to make plea bargain and sentencing agreements documents that you have to visit the courthouse to get, instead of making them available online w other docs.

marykatharine on July 25, 2007 at 10:49 PM

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm haaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmm

Mojack420 on July 25, 2007 at 11:17 PM

I think some of the tension was because of MySpace. O’Reilly had to stick up for them quick

PowWow on July 26, 2007 at 12:06 AM

At 1st I was thinking that it was not any dating service’s responsibility to do background checks, but maybe that could be an option. Although the expenses would probably go up and most of them would go out of business?

Why isn’t there a free national database background check on the internet? Shouldn’t public criminal records be put in a searchable online format? Seems like that would solve a lot of problems in general, not just dating services.

nottakingsides on July 26, 2007 at 12:06 AM

At 1st I was thinking that it was not any dating service’s responsibility to do background checks, but maybe that could be an option. Although the expenses would probably go up and most of them would go out of business?

Why isn’t there a free national database background check on the internet? Shouldn’t public criminal records be put in a searchable online format? Seems like that would solve a lot of problems in general, not just dating services.

nottakingsides on July 26, 2007 at 12:06 AM

…not a bad idea; if they can do it to informants because it’s “public” information, how much more is conviction info public, since it’s the result of a public trial?

urbancenturion on July 26, 2007 at 12:26 AM

Love that headline.

“Mary Katharine Ham talks sexual deviants on O’Reilly”

There’s something funny there. I swear there is.

MrC_5150 on July 26, 2007 at 12:27 AM

If MKH was an actress, wouldn’t she be a natural to play Wonder Woman in that movie that’s being discussed?

radjah shelduck on July 26, 2007 at 1:06 AM

MKH hits gold again with her weekly appearance. I wish FNC would give her and MM their own weekend show already!

itzWicks on July 26, 2007 at 1:59 AM

29,000 perverts removed from MySpace.

Turn out the lights. The party’s over.

saved on July 26, 2007 at 7:52 AM

We have been complaining about MySpace for years. They are just now removing deviants? Don’t they realize that it’s been a tool of bullies posting lies and slander?

Oh I’m sorry, that was the NYT. Never mind.

saved on July 26, 2007 at 7:57 AM

Doesnt the “rat” site sound to you guys a lot like the non-religious version of the Imam-John Doe case…

going after the ordinary citizen who seeks to aid law enforcement in deterring crimes.

Maybe we need a John Doe provision protecting identities of police informants from the general public, and available only for legitimate law enforcement purposes, which would exclude this “rat” jerk from getting them.

Always Right on July 26, 2007 at 7:57 AM

HEY GIRL! Where was your TIARA?

You need your OWN show on FNC>>>>

THE “IT” FACTOR!

seejanemom on July 26, 2007 at 7:59 AM

…not a bad idea; if they can do it to informants because it’s “public” information, how much more is conviction info public, since it’s the result of a public trial?

In colonial Williamsburg, they just took the miscreants outside and put ‘em in stocks. Post their crime over their head and let ‘em sit there for a day or two. (Those being the ones who weren’t hanged, of course.)

oldleprechaun on July 26, 2007 at 9:36 AM

Having watched a bunch of these clips with MM, KP, and MKH, on the Factor, it appears that one of the most important skill sets is that of being able to be graceful about being interrupted in 95% of your statements. I’ve seen segments of the Factor where O’Reilly let almost no contribution by his gorgeous, and capapable assistants go uninterrupted. Apparently you have to be able to express yourself in 15 second bursts, and definitely don’t pause to take a breath! MM does the best at handling him by far.

smellthecoffee on July 26, 2007 at 10:16 AM

I like clean cut conservative girls…no tats or piercings for me.

Locrian on July 26, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Apparently you have to be able to express yourself in 15 second bursts, and definitely don’t pause to take a breath! MM does the best at handling him by far.

smellthecoffee on July 26, 2007 at 10:16 AM

15 seconds? Anyone who goes uninterrupted for 15 seconds on Bill’s show is setting a new record. I do enjoy the show at times, but Bill needs to learn when to shut the hell up.

I think he needs one of those dog shock collars so his producers can give him a jolt every time he interrupts within the first 7 seconds of a guest speaking.

Hollowpoint on July 26, 2007 at 12:21 PM

Speaking of sexual deviants, allow me to take a moment of shameless self-promotion:

“I apologize if any readers found the preceding to be overly prurient and/or offensive. But if you did find it offensive, please send this column to O’Reilly. I could use the exposure.”

Enrique on July 26, 2007 at 12:43 PM

OT, but MKH should be married and procreating four or five beautiful children for the glorious future of America.

archon2001 on July 26, 2007 at 1:47 PM

I thought that “O’R” had messed up when he mentioned “Match.com” at the beginning-I was sure he meant Myspace, as I knew that Match was more regulated. It surprises me that a sexual predator made it past the Match.com screening, but I guess deviants are devious.
Here’s a dating tip for all of you singles out there-shut off your computers and go out in the real world and meet people.

Doug on July 27, 2007 at 8:08 AM

Well actually Bill is right on this one (for a change). MKH’s statement “You have to check the sex offenders register when you’re dealing with someone on Match.com.” is totally unrealistic. As a user of these services you don’t have access to the other person’s real name, only the provider has access to that info. Consequently it’s not possible for users to check any such thing. Match.com however does have access to that info, even if the person gives a false name, they still have to use a real credit card to pay. So the only one that can do any checking of that kind is the service provider.

I’m kinda surprised that MySpace managed to identify sex-offenders, seeing as one doesnt have to pay for MySpace and consequently does not need to use a credit card and why would any sex-offender give their real name on MySpace or any other online service, unless they absolutely have to?

Aylios on July 27, 2007 at 11:11 AM