Rachel strolled over to the Ed Sullivan Theater this afternoon to tape an appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman. That airs tonight at 11:35 pm ET. Their site says the other guests are Serena Williams and Elle King (Holy... You heard her version of that song?? I didn't think it could get dirtier.), so don't worry about trying to switch over at just the right time. Just watch it.
Also, if you missed it, a portion of Rachel's appearance last Thursday on Totally Biased with W. Kamau Bell is now online.
See also the Chicongo joke. :)
Leave a Comment:
So, me and some of my facebook feminists thought of something you never brought up and we think it is fair questioning. If a woman is raped and denied termination, will she have to give visitation rights to the rapist if he is caught? Will she receive child support? Will the Repubs loosen up to pay social services to the child of a rape victim? And if she gives the child for adoption, will the rapist be able to re enter the child's life at some point and terrorize the new family?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist-visitation-rights/index.html
This woman decided to give birth to the child (a result of a rape) and is now facing custody battles in court with her rapist. So, I think the answer is that were a rape victim to have her child, she will indeed face potential custody battles over the rape, whether she was forced to have the child or (like this woman) decided to have the child anyway on her own. Disgusting.
I respect her decision, but am frightened and disgusted by the fact that this may become the only alternative to the back alley clothes hanger.
The point I was trying to #mansplain is that this woman chose exactly what the right wing wanted her to (to give birth to the child of rape) and yet still, she has to face her rapist in court... to try and get full custody. IMO, a rapist waives all rights to custody the moment he rapes, but this is apparently still a legal issue.
I'm 100% pro-choice btw.
Scarier still... not that she had to face him in court... but that visitation / custody of the child was used as a bartering chip to get the criminal case dropped (unless I read it wrong)... no criminal case... no "legitimate" rape... win win for whom? oh... the rapist... but he was the non violent kind... right?
ugh.
"So, me and some of my facebook feminists..."
One thing we clearly need to do is to invest in education. We have idiot politicians who don't understand the evil of rape and we have feminists who post here who do not understand basic grammar -- it is "So some of my Facebook feminists and I..."
http://www.onetermmore.com/video_subtitles.html
Rachel (and fans) please check this out!! Gives me goose bumps!
Oh that was way cool... kudos for the find !!
Ok, like this is my favorite thing! Wow, awesome. I just sent it to my friends and family... the ones that won't totally hate me for liking it.
Hey Rachel -- didn't know how to reach you and wanted you to see this:
http://www.onetermmore.com/video_subtitles.html
So terrrrrrific! Hope staff will take a moment to view and call to your attention! I'll look for it on the show :-)
You could try the 'CONTACT' link at the bottom of the page. Might work better then posting it repeatedly on a blog she may or may not read the comments of. ;)
Will, you just made me an Elle King fan.
Let's call the Republican commitment to women's health what it is. They think there is no such thing as statutory rape. A 14 year old should be forced to have a baby, without concern as to how he or she was conceived. Have you ever heard the term "sometimes no means yes"? This attitude was prevalent in the fifties and early sixties and the Republican Party wants to bring it back. Many of us are walking around today with the memory of such a trauma. Why don't we just undo civil rights too?
While this policy is predominantly about an attack on women, it is also an attack on the traditional family. If strictly implemented, a husband will be required to raise the child if a rapist impregnates his wife. What culture forces a man and a woman together to raise a child that is the child of a rape? As deplorable as the situation is, as much as it is an attack on underage and single women, the Republicans have failed to see that women are not the only target in their cross-hairs. It is so clearly an assault on the integrity of the family. Maybe the blatant misogyny of it has led us to miss the collateral damage that this legislation might entail.
I admire all your work and your courage, Rachel. Keep it up!
I've also pondered at the fact that according to the far right GLBTQ persons should not be allowed to adopt children or marry because they are all child molesters. Curious since these people also adhere to the belief that to be GLBTQ is a choice and that the decision is often made as the result of rape or molestation in adolescence. If this is the case then would not you, by forcing those who have been raped to bear the child, then be forcing those children into GLBTQ homes? And if all GLBTQ persons are the result of rape and all GLBTQ persons rape children then would not the logic follow that this would mean a Personhood Amendment would in fact be mandating rape upon a child and mandating that at least some children would be reared in "unfit" GLBTQ homes?
From my perspective it seems that the more extreme to the right we move in our dialogue the more inconsistent each argument gets. I vehemently believe that there are no longer conservatives in the Republican Party, but rather economic libertarians or social reactionaries. And if I am correct in my hypothesis that means that they literally only think argument to argument- the very brief interactions I've had with right-wingers on this blog has seemingly confirmed this reality. If that is the case then no they have not thought about how their wild theories about gays and abortion would necessitate the very breakdown of the American family they are constantly railing about. And no they would not have considered that this would force married families to raise children sired outside of the family that no one within the family wanted.
This is a little off the point but during TRMS I keep seeing an ad for an upcoming movie entitled 2016 with some very ominous commentary. Is TRMS going to address this?
Unfortunately TRMS probably has little control over the show once it leaves the studio. Some ads are sold by MSNBC, some are sold by the media carrier (the cable or satellite provider). Even streaming media is not immune to the invading advertisements. For this particular ad, the mention of the name Dinesh D'Souza is all I need to know about the movie. Some of those ads are placed for the 3-4% of viewers that watch only to be "shocked and appalled" by the host (the 3% that always vote against whatever poll is conducted on The Ed Show).
Funny thing about those whackjob political ads is that they all pay money to keep Rachel's show on the air. And that's a good thing.
Just saw the interview on Letterman, and i was thoroughly impressed. My wife and i have always thought you were wicked smart, and you are a great communicator. It was nice to see Mr. Letterman think the same. Congrats.
Maddow was very disappointing on Letterman. Every time the confused Letterman asked a question that showed his utter ignorance, Maddow weaselly declined the opportunity to tell the audience that the Romney campaign is nothing but a series of lies. It was nearly as if I was watching Dick Gregory or Brian Williams. Not quite, but close. And she also had opportunities to inform the audience of the last four, and especially the last two, years of Republican obstruction. She didn't. Similarly she declined the opportunity to inform the public of the destruction wreaked by Republican austerity plans of the past and future. "Smartest person in the world," Letterman ridiculously gushed. Hardly. And put her somewhere where the audience might have a significant number of Republicans and she almost but not quite turned into another of the familiar cowardly so-called journalists that are the root of the problem in this country.
Very disappointing.