Once every day we take a second to highlight a few comments that made us laugh, made us think, or made us feel good about the world. Today we have two comments, on Randi Zuckerberg and gay actors.

The first is from iplaudius who subtly undermined in Facebook CEO's Sister Wants to Be a Pop Star:

Speaking as a Jew, though not on behalf of all Jews, let me say that some Jews are meant to be in the show. And some are meant to run the show. That is all.

Second, Mean_Ol_Liberal made an interesting argument in Gay Actor in Gay Play Forgets If He's in the Closet:

OK, hate on me, if you will. I think you missed his entire point in the Out interview, Brian. I can't help but really respect what he said to Out, which, in my opinion, is entirely consistent with his ignoring New York's obnoxious assumption. (That edit, by the way, could have easily been made by the mag itself, because the statement was that obnoxious.)

I used to make civil rights all about the inherent and unchanging nature of orientation, because that's the way I< saw orientation. See, MY orientation was exclusive and I had no memory of ever consciously "choosing" it, so I assumed that it had to be that way for everyone. I am glad to report that I have since grown up and out of that narrow self-referential view even if my orientation never changed.

I realize now that my argument to the closed-minded bigots SHOULD have been "So fucking what if it IS a choice?" After all, isn't the point that there is no valid basis for judging one adult relationship as somehow less "equal" than another? Isn't it, really, all about respecting what someone says about their own sexual feelings and NOT attempting to define it for them?

The way I read Whishaw's statements in the Out interview is that he is saying something like that. The art did the speaking, he says. His character identified as gay until he felt a heterosexual attraction. Whishaw chose that role for a reason. Does a single out-of-orientation attraction render all past relationships meaningless? What about more than one unusual relationship? Hell no to both instances. So what good is the label on a case-by-case basis?

And the boneheaded assumption made by New York? To me, Whishaw's point made to Out was that such assumptions don't even deserve address, because they are ridiculous on their own.

Hm. Not sure we agree with all of that, but definitely good to think about!

OK, that's it. Tuesday over.

Fun note! That's little Anna Kendrick, of "Up In the Air" fame, in that wonderful clip.