Then I wish you well in your search for that deaf, blind, mute voice of our generation.

Fair point; I believe the terminology is now about being on a spectrum from mild to severe. In any case, the question is still worth asking: how fine do we go parsing who's acceptable and not acceptable to take jobs in a line of work that at its heart is basically lying about who you are?

But where's the logical extreme in what I said, CGI? I think it's a valid question to ask. If someone feels it's inappropriate for an actor to play the role of a blind person, then why wouldn't someone else have the right to say that only paralyzed actors should have a shot at playing famous wheelchair users?

In a perfect world where Hollywood executives make decisions not based on star power, perhaps. Maybe. If you're willing to invest the time and resources required to (a) find someone with those disabilities who can act (b) work out the logistical challenges of getting them to work with the cast and crew on set and (c)…

Maybe they share office space with the The Selina Meyer Fund for Adult Literacy, AIDS, the Advancement of Global Democracy & Military Family Assistance.

Fair. Like you said, there are no hard and fast rules here, and a work of fiction that strives for some level of verisimilitude should make the effort to include the perspectives of people represented in the work. That said, insisting that only actors who share the condition of a character be considered for a role…

Serious question: Helen Keller, a hell of a lady, deserves to have her story retold on the screen. I've got a script that's Oscar gold, something that will inspire millions, but the only way I can get the studio to make it is if Jennifer Lawrence signs on to play the lead.

Mark Ruffalo: "You want me to stand where? While you blow up what?"

On the one hand, I want to feel like advocates for this issue have a point; Hollywood's track record is shitty when it comes to giving actors with disabilities a chance.

So what, he's not allowed to use the same social media tools that you use to tell everyone about the details in your life? Just because he's more famous than you and news about his life travels faster than news about yours, that's something "tacky"?

Right? I have the best life partner I can possibly imagine — far better than I deserve, most days — and if she were to develop a terminal illness, the last thing she would say to me would be "stay celibate for the rest of your days."

Right, he's shitting all over her memory by refusing to be a grieving sack of shit for the rest of his life.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Thanks for that insight; now let's hear from the person holding the gun to your head and forcing you to sit in judgment of someone else's life.

While I'm sure that's not the thing that clinched the deal, I'm guessing it's a nice bonus. Who among us would pass up a chance to say we're dating a Jedi?

Aww. Best of luck to them in their future together.

Or just "hero." It's not like the gender is explicitly spelled out, like in "fireman" or "nursewoman."

There's a very good reason why Trump Nation doesn't have the equivalent of a Daily Show or Last Week Tonight. And it's not because they're morons (Well, not just because). It's because the authoritarian mindset it takes to swallow his bullshit and call it "leadership" has zero capacity for humor, introspection or any…

PRESIDENT CARTMAN, EVERYONE! GIVE HIM A HAND!

Wow, Colbert's ratings up since he started attacking Trump nightly, Morning Joe's ratings are up, subscriptions to the NYT and WaPo are heading upwards…

I remember that "Night Court" episode where Judge Stone literally disrobed and he was in a T-shirt and underwear underneath. "Many have wondered, now they know," he said.