Hasta La Gadget!

However, in another video featuring Hilton’s description of NanoDrop at the beginning, there’s a shift halfway through.

“So… Apparently NanoDrop is not 5,000 times as hydrating as regular sparkling water. Yeah. It’s kinda like the same. I became suspicious when my chief scientist Phil became severely dehydrated. He will be missed,” Hilton says, stroking a shiny gold urn, presumably filled with Phil’s ashes.

OH OK, PARIS, YOU GOT JOKES.

Hilton goes on to say that her newer solution to rid the world of plastic bottles is to use SodaStream’s sparkling water maker.

We gotta hand it to you, Paris. This is pretty hot.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

When it comes to the roller coaster known as parenting, sometimes you just have to laugh at the chaos. And Patton Oswalt’s tweets can help.

The actor and comedian has tweeted about his life as a father to Alice, his 7-year-old daughter, capturing some funny parenting moments and her most random yet hilarious quotes along the way.

There was that one time he tweeted about his daughter’s dance moves.

And there was the time he predicted what would happen if “Frozen” didn’t win an Oscar in 2014.

He’s tweeted about his “usual breakfast” as a parent.

And he’s joked about his book suggestions for kids. 

The comedian has shared his opinion on the not-so-clean side of parenting.

And he’s pretty clear that the “Toy Story” franchise is enough to make even adults shed a tear. 

He’s shown he’s always up for a challenge. 

And in a single tweet, he captured what every parent truly wants.

He’s also documented some of the hilarious things his daughter has said…

Including what he considers “excellent post-punk lyrics.”

Funny clearly runs in the family.

The HuffPost Parents newsletter, So You Want To Raise A Feminist, offers the latest stories and news in progressive parenting. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals face pervasive housing discrimination, according to a recent study. It’s worse than researchers expected, and the people being discriminated against may not even know it.

Researchers at the Suffolk University Law School Housing Discrimination Testing Program in Boston used a pretty straightforward test to determine this. A trans or gender-nonconforming person would respond to a housing rental ad, and then another individual who had similar characteristics but was not trans would go see the same unit. Researchers compared their treatment.

When trying to rent an apartment, the first group received discriminatory treatment 61 percent of the time, the study found. 

To make sure the person showing the apartment knew a prospective tenant was transgender, testers were trained to bring up their identity casually, like sharing that their legal name would be different for a credit check.  

Thirty-three teams of two people, who worked separately and did not meet, participated in these “matched paired housing discrimination tests” from December 2015 to June 2016, checking out apartments identified in a randomized listing search for studios and one-bedrooms in the Boston area. Testers answered a long list of questions about the experience, like whether they were offered an application or shown other available units. There were major differences in some answers.  

Trans and gender-nonconforming individuals were 21 percent less likely to be offered a financial incentive to rent, and 9 percent more likely to be quoted a higher price. They were 12 percent more likely to be told negative comments about the apartment or neighborhood, and 27 percent less likely to be shown extra facilities, like a laundry room or pool.

In one pairing, a tester was told the security deposit would cost four times more than the price offered to the control subject.

“It’s really shocking to see that people are being quoted a higher rental price. That’s just wrong,” study author Jamie Langowski, clinical fellow and assistant director of Suffolk’s Housing Discrimination Testing Program, told The Huffington Post. 

It’s legal to discriminate against LGBTQ people in most states. Massachusetts and 19 other states, however, outlaw gender identity-based housing discrimination.

The study adds to evidence that the housing industry, which has a long history of now-outlawed forms of discrimination, allows bias against LGBTQ individuals to flourish, even in states where it’s illegal. A National Center for Transgender Equality survey of trans individuals in 2015 found that 23 percent experienced housing discrimination in the previous year.

None of the testers in the Boston study were explicitly prevented from renting, and some of the individual differences seem minor ― like a control tester being told the kitchen would be freshly painted before moving in, while the other individual was not. But they stacked up to a clear pattern of discriminatory treatment, said Langowski and coauthor William Berman, law professor and director of the testing program.    

Part of the problem is that it can be “discrimination with a smile,” Langowski said, so potential renters may be unaware of mistreatment.

Berman and Langowski argue that their study demonstrates the need for federal law preventing housing discrimination based on gender identity.

But under President Donald Trump, there’s already been a rollback of LGBTQ legal protections. Trump signed legislation this week that weakens rules protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer federal contractors from discrimination. Earlier this month, the administration withdrew a policy that prevented schools from discriminating against transgender students.  

With a flurry of discriminatory legislation under consideration and an uptick in hate crimes against transgender individuals, housing discrimination ― widespread, but often subtle ― might not be advocates’ biggest concern. But Berman argued it’s nevertheless an urgent issue.

“There are significant consequences if you lose the ability to live where you want to live only because of who you are,” Berman said. “It affects every part of your life. It affects your ability to have economic opportunities, like commute or proximity to work, health, proximity to health care, education … so even if you don’t know it, you’ve lost a very significant opportunity.”

Berman and Langowski acknowledged that 33 pairs is a small sample size, but said it’s still the largest study of its kind and produced statistically significant results. The research was conducted in partnership with the city of Boston and funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Development.

Fair housing programs ― some of which root out discrimination based on race, age, disability and sex around the country through similar paired tests ― don’t appear to be at risk in Trump’s proposed budget cuts to HUD, though some organizations are worried that they will no longer be a priority.  

“Are we concerned when we see budgets that require significant cuts? Absolutely,” Berman said, “because the work is important and we want to see it continue.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

By now, you’re probably aware that Jordan Peele considers his movie “Get Out” to be a “social thriller” ― a genre he coined himself. 

The film has been both a box-office and critical success, earning over $150 million in ticket sales and settling at a 99 percent Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes (with only one negative review).

During a long media cycle for the movie, Jordan Peele appeared on numerous podcasts, including “Fresh Air” and “Nerdist,” and showed up in print publications, such as GQ and The New York Times. The Huffington Post suggested that “Get Out” is the type of movie the Oscars should pay attention to, and praised the ending as “a reason to go to the movies.”

If you’re reading this, you are probably, like us, already craving another great “social thriller” to watch ASAP. 

Although it may be a while before a new movie comes out, it’s already possible to discover an older film that may be brand new to you. During numerous interviews, Peele referenced “The Stepford Wives” as a good choice.

But in any case, it was a welcome surprise when streaming movie service Warner Archive reached out about a new curation by old Hollywood podcast host extraordinaire Karina Longworth, the creator of the popular “You Must Remember This.”

The curated list, which mostly focuses on movies from the mid-1900s, including “West Point” (1928), “Bombshell” (1933), “The Star” (1952) and “The Prince and the Showgirl” (1957), features a flick that might just interest “Get Out” fans.

Here’s Longworth talking to the Warner Archive about the 1942 movie “Cat People.”

I think the most essential film on the list is “Cat People.” It’s definitely something I would recommend for people who think they don’t like horror movies. It’s a masterclass in filmmaking with budgetary limitations, and its political allegory (critiquing the idea of American security as being synonymous with homogeneity, and the fear of the other) couldn’t be more timely. 

HuffPost sent a few follow-up questions Longworth’s way to get a further explanation of “Cat People” and its role in culture. Her responses are below.

You said “Cat People” is the most essential film on this list in your mind, due to its ability to create a successful political allegory on a low budget. Could you talk a bit more in length about the message the movie was trying to present and your understanding of how it was received?

Longworth: There’s a part in the “YMRT” episode I did on “Cat People’s” producer Val Lewton, in which Lewton is in a meeting at RKO and an executive says to him, “Remember, we don’t want any ‘messages’ in our movies.” Lewton responded, “Sorry, but my movies do have messages. The message is, death is good.” 

That deliberate antagonism of his bosses aside, all of Lewton’s films intentionally used the horror/thriller genre as an excuse to make movies about social and psychological life in the post-war world. In “Cat People,” Lewton depicts a cheerful, peace time America that equates a secure society with a homogenous one.

The “monster” is the foreign other who has infiltrated the American family by marrying a boring American man, and in a foreshadowing of the 1950s’ totally mixed-up ideas about women and sex, this exotic creature has to remain chaste in order to keep the monster locked up inside her.

If I had to explain what Lewton meant by the idea that his “message” is that “death is good,” I’d point to the fact that the harbinger of death in “Cat People” is also the film’s most sympathetic character, and is absolutely a victim of social circumstance. “Cat People” was a massive hit, probably because all of these ideas were subliminal rather than overt. 

Do you see parallels between “Cat People” and Jordan Peele’s recent stated goal to make social commentary horror (such as “Get Out”)? Do you think “Cat People” can be considered a urtext for that genre (if not necessarily for Peele specifically)?

I think the genre of horror (or, supernatural fiction) has been frequently used as a vehicle for social commentary and criticism. I wouldn’t call “Cat People” the single urtext, because it’s not part of the first or second wave of socially conscious supernatural films.

Certainly it is a classic, but it was actually probably more innovative in its visual style than in its social content. In terms of looking for other foundational films, prior to “Cat People,” a lot of the monster movies of the 1930s, including “King Kong” and “Frankenstein,” and two of my favorites, “Mad Love” and “The Walking Dead,” use the stories of monsters, and the idea of a porous line between life and death, to critique society.

If there is one single urtext, maybe it’s Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein.” 

Watch the trailer for “Cat People” below.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

When Missouri voters approved a voter ID measure last year, lawmakers in the state promised to pay for costs associated with implementing the policy and educating residents about it. Now that they’re faced with a budget shortfall, however, Republicans are looking for ways to curb such spending. 

Republicans in Missouri championed voter ID law for years before voters approved a ballot measure to require people to display identification at the polls. The measure came with the caveat that the state would provide free identification and documentation to anyone who needed it. Several other states with voter ID laws have made similar promises.

Democrat Jason Kander, who was serving as Missouri’s secretary of state at the time, estimated last year that implementing the policy and educating people about it would cost $5.2 million. The law went into effect on Jan. 1.

Kander told The Huffington Post that he shared that figure with his successor, Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R), and that Ashcroft didn’t raise any objections. But Ashcroft drastically cut his funding request for the law to $1.4 million as state lawmakers debated how to fill a budget shortfall of $456 million. Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens (R) requested just $300,000 for it.

Ashcroft has said he plans to save money by cutting television ads and direct mailings to registered voters in the state, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported. He has chosen to rely on personal interactions with voters and partnerships with community groups. 

However, Democrats and other critics of the voter ID requirement say the law will likely generate enormous amounts of confusion. They argue that the Republicans’ current plan is inadequate and doesn’t show a real commitment to making sure every valid voter can make their voice heard. 

They’re not gonna get anything in the mail. They’re not gonna see any information on TV. What we’ve seen in other states is that that is a recipe for disaster.
Denise Lieberman, senior attorney at The Advancement Project

“I think that it’s absolutely ridiculous that politicians ― who, when they run campaigns either locally or statewide, spend insane amounts of money on direct mail and TV advertising ― say, ‘Well, we don’t need those things to reach voters,’” said state Rep. Peter Meredith (D). He recently tried to add $3 million to funding for the law, but the move was blocked.

Even states that have invested in extensive outreach efforts have seen considerable confusion among voters and DMV workers, said Denise Lieberman, a senior attorney in the voter protection program at The Advancement Project. The organization has challenged photo ID laws in other states.

“In North Carolina, they sent three direct mailings to every single voter and we argued in court that that was not enough,” she said. “Jay Ashcroft’s budget doesn’t even allow for television advertising of the new law. At best, the most education voters are gonna receive is seeing a poster when they walk into some place. They’re not gonna get anything in the mail. They’re not gonna see any information on TV. What we’ve seen in other states is that that is a recipe for disaster.” 

Such laws disproportionally hurt people of color, young people, low-income voters, seniors and voters with disabilities, she said. 

Missouri isn’t the only state where Republicans insist that they can implement voter ID at a low cost. Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate (R) has said he won’t request any additional money to implement a voter ID law if it is approved by the legislature. Pate has estimated that it will cost $1 million to implement the law, provide as many free IDs as necessary and educate the public. Democrats and critics of the proposal, however, have accused Pate of underestimating how much funding he’ll really need to roll out the program. 

Kander estimated that 224,000 registered voters lacked acceptable voter identification in 2014. Republicans have accused him of inflating this number to make the law look bad, according to the Post-Dispatch. 

“We stand by our numbers, and [Republicans] have provided no facts to dispute them. They just say that they don’t think they’re right,” Kander said. “Now, all of a sudden that they have to actually do it, suddenly they’ve come up with different math, although it’s interesting that they won’t really show their work.”

“This is the whole playbook of voter suppression, which is you create obstacles to voting and then you create obstacles to the obstacles. That’s what they’re doing here,” he added. “Now these folks in Jefferson City are just making up numbers now to try and fit within a budget. And that’s just not how this is supposed to work. Their legislation was that they were promising that they were gonna meet to making sure everybody knew how to navigate the process and they’re not doing that.”

In-person voter fraud in the United States is extremely rare. Still, Republicans in a number of states have adopted voter ID laws and argued that they’re necessary to fight perceptions of voter fraud. But in many cases, Republicans are the ones who have created that perception.

The negotiations over funding in Missouri indicate that Republicans have never been serious about making sure all eligible voters could vote, Lieberman said.

“This budget process demonstrates how disingenuous lawmakers have been in promoting this photo ID law and in making promises to take care of all voters to ensure they’re not kept away from the polls,” she said. “This budget makes it impossible for them to keep that promise and it reveals this law for what, members of the voter protection coalition and other voters knew all along is that this is a law that’s designed and intended precisely to do what it’s gonna do and that is keep voters from voting.”

Even if the voter ID measure is adequately funded, some people will inevitably face obstacles in the process of obtaining required documentation. Many people, Lieberman said, may be discouraged from going to the polls simply because they won’t be sure if they have the proper identification. 

“The result of all of this is that valid, eligible voters are going to have more difficulty being able to cast a ballot,” Lieberman said. “The ultimate crime of this budgetary insufficiency is that valid voters are gonna pay the price for lawmakers’ failure to fund this law.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.