The people "pointing out" that Zoe Saldana doesn't have the same dark shade of skin as Nina Simone are implicitly arguing that only the darkest colored actresses should be eligible to play her, and that casting a black-but-not-black-enough actress is somehow offensive and racially insensitive. Personally I thought…

But which would you say is more important? If you were the director and you could cast a close lookalike with barely adequate talent (or even solid talent) or cast someone who wasn't an exact match but was a highly talented actress, which would you pick?

How do you implement ROWE at restaurants or really anything in a service industry? "Don't worry about staffing the cash registers when we need you, you're an adult after all, come in whenever you like!"

Lupita Nyong'o?

Who is upholding laws of colorism - the people who made a movie about an iconic black woman and cast a mixed-race black actress to play her, or the people who demand that the actress be replaced with someone who (regardless of talent or star power) has the precisely perfect shade of skin?

Which is more important - that the skin of the actress match the exact shade of Nina Simone's, or that the actress be talented and skilled enough to successfully portray every other element of Simone beyond her skin tone?

So the argument is that Zoe Saldana isn't "black enough" to play a black woman? Her family is Puerto Rican and black Dominican. If anything, people should be upset at the critics for attempting to enforce black purity against mixed-race actors.

Competency is a pretty low bar, especially as it is assessed after the fact and the defendant trying to prove incompetent counsel has to jump through a heck of a lot of hoops to succeed. A competent attorney =/= a good attorney.

It's not what you expected because the headline is factually wrong. The report doesn't say women go to the doctor less; it says they "put off" going to the doctor more. They still actually get medical care at much higher rates.

Four drinks after work every day? What kind of drinks we talkin about?

You're judging by the headline - but statistically women get medical care far more often than men. That's not incompatible with the conclusion that women put off medical care more often, too, but nothing supports the conclusion that "women go to the doctor less than men."

Because, at least if you are going by the headline, it is factually incorrect.

Do you write the headlines? Because the headline is just empirically wrong, and doesn't at all reflect what the rest of the article is about. "Women put off going to the doctor more than men" is far more accurate.

You're confusing legal ethics with personal ethics, which is understandable in this context. As a matter of legal ethics, its clear that Hiedstand is in the clear. There is nothing professionally unethical about representing an outrageously evil bastard.

The presumption of innocence is a effectively a rule of criminal court procedure, not a demand that lawyers or anyone else in the legal system turn stupid or blind.

There's no ethical bar, but yvanehtnioj never claimed there was. He just said the guy is an asshole for willingly defending a child molester for decades on multiple, repeated matters. Which is true.

Hi Asa, is there life after porn? Do you have plans for what it might look like for you? If you weren't a gigantically popular porn star, what would you be doing with your life?

Hmm. Ok, thanks!

Not most places it ain't.

It's kind to refer to Conchita as "her" and "she", but I thought in this case the drag identity was adopted solely for the performance and the performer otherwise lives as a man?