Critics See Green Shoots Of Sanity Inside Trump's White House

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

WASHINGTON – After nearly three months in office, President Donald Trump may have finally hit upon an accomplishment that both Republicans and Democrats are applauding: Ridding his West Wing of the influence of chief strategist Stephen Bannon.

Bannon, the former head of a white nationalist-friendly website, was removed from the National Security Council and its influential Principals Committee last week. Since then, he has reportedly seen his stock fall within the West Wing amid clashes with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and top economic adviser Gary Cohn. There have also been published reports that Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland is leaving the NSC to take the ambassadorship to Singapore, and Trump foreign policy aide Sebastian Gorka possibly becoming Trump’s special envoy to Libya.

McFarland came to the Trump administration from Fox News, where she was touted as a national security expert, and she has come under fire as unqualified and unsuited for the NSC’s No. 2 position. At a recent meeting, she reportedly boasted that she was wearing shoes from presidential daughter Ivanka Trump’s clothing line. Bannon ally Gorka, meanwhile, has drawn unwanted attention of late because of his ties to a Hungarian group of Nazi sympathizers.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Monday declined to discuss personnel moves that have not happened yet. But he took the unusual step of acknowledging disagreements among top aides, and argued they were a good thing.

“The reason the president’s brought this team together is offer a diverse set of opinions,” Spicer said. “He doesn’t want a monolithical kind of thought process going through the White House.”

Spicer also tacitly acknowledged that the changes to the NSC personnel are because the new national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, wanted them. McMaster, an active Army general, replaced Michael Flynn, who left after his contacts with Russian officials prior to Trump’s inauguration became public. 

For critics of Trump’s original National Security Council, that the changes are happening is a positive development, regardless of why.

“Those are all good things,” said Eliot Cohen, a vocal Trump skeptic who was a senior State Department official under President George W. Bush and a participant of his National Security Council. “H.R. will run a normal process with normal kinds of people in it.”

And on a broader level, they changes have given denizens of Washington ― Democrats included ― the stirrings of hope that the Trump administration won’t be the dangerous calamity that many feared through its first months.  

“I actually think the swamp is drowning the inhabitants that came with Trump Inc., which i frankly think is a good thing,” said Steve McMahon, a longtime Democratic strategist. “I’m a Democrat, so I naturally oppose Republicans on policy grounds. But I do think there is a certain kind of Republican that is not dangerous to the country and that to me is an establishment Republican.

“Every president comes to Washington thinking they will bend Washington to their way,” he added. “One hundred days is pretty fast. But Washington is winning and Trump seems to be figuring that out.”

The history of the presidency is littered with over-ambitious first years, followed by sobering recalibrations. The most infamous of these, at least in modern times, was Bill Clinton, whose early days were a beehive of political activity, notable wins and higher-profile defeats, sprinkled with a fair amount of dysfunction. Clinton adjusted over time, bringing in outsiders to layer over his more unseasoned staffers, and moving fundamentally away from his liberal objectives (gays in the military and health care) to a centrist platform.

Few expect Trump to make such a deft evolution, or to score the policy victories that he had promised in his early time in office. And veterans of the Clinton years argue that the two administrations’ levels of political talent, intent and competence make them fundamentally incomparable.

“While Clinton, of course, brought in some us from his inner campaign circle, he also knew he was new to D.C., and therefore had to put in people with first-rate experience in passing legislation like Howard Paster, Lloyd Bentsen at Treasury and Leon Panetta at OMB,” said Gene Sperling, a longtime Clinton adviser and confidant. “In the Trump White House, even the few senior people with some legislative experience have so far focused more on putting out extremely conservative and often divisive policy stances than on actually devising strategies for legislative success.”

But the new path Trump appears to be taking has some parallels to administrations past, albeit with a more chaotic starting point. While Cohn and Kushner lack anything close to the type of government experience of those Clinton’s aides, neither do they share Bannon’s seemingly nihilistic take on governance. The elevation of McMaster and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in the national security apparatus, meanwhile, has “reinvigorated” the GOP foreign policy community, according to one Republican official who interviewed with the Trump administration, but declined to take a job.

“The kind, generous explanation is that Trump realized he needed professionals in this space,” said Rick Wilson, a longtime Republican Trump critic and former Pentagon staffer. “The less generous explanation is that Trump’s attention span is so short that McMaster waited him out and did what he wanted to do.”

Cohen, who now teaches at Johns Hopkins University, said that McMaster taking control of the National Security Council doesn’t solve the fundamental problem, which is Trump’s lack of fitness for the job.

“He has a limited attention span, he has no background knowledge, he listens to the last person he’s talked to,” Cohen said, adding that McMaster cannot possibly make Trump more qualified. “It’s a conceit of the bureaucratic age that having that kind of person around can change everything. It can’t.”

Still, Cohen said, it’s better that the White House changes happened. “This is all good news. Don’t get me wrong,” he said. “The big moment will be when he (Bannon) either quits or is fired. Which I think will happen eventually.”

— 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.

How To Defend Yourself Against A Broken Health Care System

As the heated debate over Obamacare rages on in Washington and across the country, we can all seem to agree on at least one thing: Health care is complicated.

Despite some of the policies instituted by the Affordable Care Act, America’s medical system is still plagued by problems. Insurance premiums and drug prices have skyrocketed, leaving Americans struggling to access affordable care. A 2016 survey of 11 countries from the Commonwealth Fund found that U.S. citizens were far more likely to go without care because it was too expensive.  

The U.S. is also one of the only wealthy, industrialized nations that does not have universal health care. American health care prices are at least two to three times what they are in other countries, and nearly two-thirds of all bankruptcies in the U.S. are due to illness and medical bills.  

How did we get into this mess? Former Harvard physician and veteran New York Times reporter Elisabeth Rosenthal breaks down the evolution of American medicine ― from an industry in the business of providing care to one that’s geared entirely toward maximizing profits. With her new book An American Sickness: How Healthcare Became Big Business And How You Can Take It Back, Rosenthal’s goal was to start a “very loud conversation” about an institution in crisis.

“The current market for health care just doesn’t deliver. It is deeply, perhaps fatally, flawed,” Rosenthal writes. “Even market economists themselves don’t believe in it anymore.” 

Rosenthal, who also authored the Times’ popular “Paying Till It Hurts” series, has become a vocal advocate for patients’ rights and consumer education. Her book includes a glossary for medical bills and explanation of benefits, a list of pricing tools, and templates for protest letters to hospitals and insurance providers, among other resources for concerned patients. 

We sat down with Rosenthal to learn more about how this dysfunctional system came to be ― and how a critical mass of educated consumers can create real change. 

How did we get into this mess? Was there a particular moment in American history that health care really took a decisive turn for the worse? 

When I started researching the book, I knew the outcome ― prices are really high compared to the rest of the world, and our outcomes are worse ― and I wanted to know how we got to this crazy place that the patients hate and the doctors hate. I found that there was a long chain of events over decades ― decisions that looked smart when they were made, and good ideas that got perverted when the profit motive came into play. 

At some basic level, you could say that the problem started with insurance, but that’s not to say that insurance is a bad thing. What those insurance policies did was to separate the payment from the services, and in the early days, we became blind to what was paid because we didn’t pay it ourselves. Up until a couple decades ago, if you had good insurance, your insurer pretty much paid everything. Now, that’s not the case anymore because people have higher co-pays and higher deductibles, and suddenly they’re saying, “Whoa, how did things get so expensive?” This allowed the system to become so costly, because consumers didn’t notice for a long time. 

Another event was the entrance of businesses into the hospital space. Over the years, business jobs have become more common and much more powerful in health care. The people running hospitals are usually no longer doctors ― there’s a layer of MBAs that didn’t used to be there. Now, you find companies run by businesspeople who often have very little knowledge of the needs of medicine. They are, in the end, for-profit companies, and their goal is to maximize their revenue. I think they’ve done that very effectively. 

How does the American health care system stack up compared to other developed countries? 

Well, the single most startling difference is that Americans think about cost and bills and whether they can afford a medical procedure ― and that’s just not even in the conversation in other countries. I started this book while living overseas, and I’ve interacted with many other health care systems. My experience in those other countries has been, for instance, profuse apologies for having to pay $100 for stitches. I remember thinking, “You don’t even know how lucky I am,” because if I had gone into a hospital in New York with this, I’d come out with a $500 copay, and my insurer would be billed thousands of dollars. 

Money is very much not part of the individual calculation in other countries, and it’s become the center of the conversation in ours. 

Where is all the money going? Who profits the most from this system? 

It’s kind of everything and nothing. When you look at salaries of hospital, pharma or insurance CEOs, they’re really high ― millions, often tens of millions, annually. That’s one issue. But what I learned as I was researching this book was that it’s everything that contributes to the cost, and the money goes everywhere ― except to patients! It’s basically being pulled out of our wallets. 

The money goes everywhere, but it often doesn’t go towards what the patients really want or need or care about. On the whole, we see from our health outcomes that higher costs doesn’t lead to better care. 

How can patients protect themselves? 

The first principle is that you’re not helpless. The first step is to feel empowered, and not just to write the check but to start asking questions ― even before you see the doctor or go to the hospital. 

One thing I always ask my doctor now is, “If you’re going to send me for blood work, can you please send out the samples to an in-network lab?” I’ve seen so many patients with in-network doctors who send blood to an out-of-network lab, and the prices for something simple can be literally 20 times more what they would be if they were sent to one of the commercial labs that’s in-network. Another question that patients should ask is, “Why?” Do I really need that extra X-ray? Will the X-ray change what we do? And if the answer is no, then maybe you hold off for now. 

So if you start demanding transparency, there will be pressure on hospitals to provide it.

Are you hopeful for the possibility of change? 

I would say we’re at a tipping point where it’s become pretty unsustainable. We saw this at some of the town hall meetings recently, when people started to realize that repealing the Affordable Care Act would affect their own insurance. 

People are really struggling. But I do think there’s a kind of groundswell of recognition that things are really not working well for most Americans with health care. The ACA shifted the dialogue on what the government’s role is in ensuring that people get the health care they need. Now we’re back at the drawing board again. I echo what Obama said as he was leaving office: If the Republicans can provide real health care to all Americans at an affordable price in a different way, then great. Let’s see it. President Trump says he’s a good dealmaker, and we’re getting a really bad deal. 

— 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.

How Activists Destroyed Bill O’Reilly’s Reputation With Advertisers

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

In the past week, Fox News executives could only stand by and watch as a wave of advertisers pulled out of Bill O’Reilly’s blockbuster prime-time show.

Behind the big-money exodus were a loose band of part-time activists, who decided to piggyback on a New York Times report of sexual harassment allegations against O’Reilly and mount a campaign to strip away the cable news titan’s ad sponsorships.

The day the campaign began, “The O’Reilly Factor” was interrupted by upwards of 30 commercials. By Monday night, that number had been halved. Gone, too, were most big-name brands, leaving ads for life insurance, a company that lets you cash out your life insurance, a pillow whose creator is trying to sever ties with the show and an ear wax removal system.

O’Reilly continues to face a massive backlash over the Times report, published April 1. Fox News’ parent company, 21st Century Fox, said Sunday it has hired a law firm to investigate the claims against O’Reilly.

The Times report revealed that 21st Century Fox and O’Reilly have paid about $13 million in settlements to five of his former female colleagues in exchange for their silence, or for keeping their accusations out of court. Two other women have accused him of inappropriate behavior, including one who has an open case against the network. O’Reilly denied the allegations in a statement last week.

O’Reilly has weathered controversy in the past, and some of the allegations in the Times story had been previously reported. But this time, advertisers responded. By the week’s end, more than 70 companies had pulled ads from O’Reilly’s program or said they planned to, including earlier holdouts.  

Angie’s List said midweek that it wasn’t dropping the show, but abruptly reversed its stance Friday night. Comcast kept quiet for most of the week, but a spokesman said Sunday that the company has “taken steps to ensure that our advertising does not run during ‘The O’Reilly Factor.’”

Companies that waited to pull ads likely saw a stream of tweets from users asking them to #DropOReilly, thanks in part to groups like Sleeping Giants

The loosely organized group of volunteers was formed after the November presidential election to get companies to stop advertising on Breitbart News, which publishes white nationalist content. The group’s goal was to “defund bigotry.”

They and their 80,000 followers look at Breitbart daily, taking screenshots of ads and tweeting them to advertisers with a request to stop advertising on the site. Sleeping Giants says hundreds of those companies have since agreed to drop Breitbart.

The Sleeping Giants organizers keep their names anonymous so that their activism doesn’t interfere with their marketing jobs, a co-founder told The Huffington Post.

At first, they hesitated getting involved with Fox News, which would dilute their focus on Breitbart. But after “more and more outcry” from followers, they began tracking and targeting “The O’Reilly Factor” advertisers in earnest ― practically a second full-time job, the Sleeping Giants co-founder said.

“We did a little bit of soul-searching ourselves,” he said. “We really started as an anti-bigotry campaign, but ultimately, misogyny has always been part of what we’re fighting against. It made a lot of sense. We just didn’t know if we had the bandwidth to pull it off.”

Sleeping Giants creates graphics about O’Reilly’s controversy and encourages followers to tweet them at advertisers. The tactic is intended to be a polite sting ― far milder than shaming or a boycott threat. The group follows up with positive reinforcement, publicly thanking companies that stop advertising.

Angelo Carusone, president of liberal nonprofit Media Matters, calls out companies from the Twitter account @stoporeilly and tracks “The O’Reilly Factor” ads on the Media Matters site. In 2009, he led a similar social media campaign in Twitter’s early days that got hundreds of advertisers to drop former Fox News host Glenn Beck. Another campaign aimed at conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Carusone takes a more aggressive stance than Sleeping Giants, warning companies to steer clear of O’Reilly if they want to keep their reputations intact.

“Advertisers that stay with O’Reilly will need to explain to their customers and to their employees why the company is comfortable associating their brand with serial sexual harassment,” Carusone wrote.

Organizers for the Women’s March pushed a social media campaign as well. Rather than targeting advertisers individually, they used the #DropOReilly hashtag in an outpouring of tweets aimed to show companies how sexual harassment affects women.

Companies have so far been more responsive to the O’Reilly campaign than to Carusone’s lobbying against Beck’s advertisers. He told Politico it took a month before an advertiser pulled out of Beck’s show. Beck left Fox News two years later.

As brands back away from O’Reilly, Fox News has said little beyond affirming that it values advertisers and is working to address concerns. The network didn’t respond to questions about how the show has been affected by the ad loss, or why the number of ads airing during “The O’Reilly Factor” declined over the week.  

There’s no indication that O’Reilly’s job is in jeopardy. “The O’Reilly Factor” is usually the top-rated cable news show on any given night, and its ratings actually increased last week.

“The O’Reilly Factor” advertisers are being directed to other Fox News shows. And even if the backlash continues, “The O’Reilly Factor” has value to the network beyond ads. A Hollywood Reporter column pointed out that O’Reilly’s popularity with viewers helps Fox charge cable providers top dollar.

The Times suggested the advertiser loss could end up being “more symbolic than financial.” The Sleeping Giants representative acknowledged this was a possibility, but said he believes “the noise surrounding it is going to grow.”

“Fox should take responsibility for this,” he added. “If anyone outside of their top-level staff was sexually harassing someone at work, they wouldn’t think twice about tossing them out of the building. We just think it’s hypocritical.”

— 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.

This 'Addams Family' Netflix Trailer Is Mysterious And Spooky (And Fake)

Tragically, we aren’t getting a Netflix remake of “The Addams Family” anytime soon. But a fan-made trailer posted to Facebook late last week is here to show us what we’re missing.

Cleverly combining clips from existing shows including “Penny Dreadful,” “Crimson Peak” and the 1991 “Addams Family” movie, the minds behind an unofficial news page for the streaming service crafted an all-together-ooky idea of what the revamped Addams household might look like.

A eerie dollhouse, a pale and dark-haired girl’s mischievous smile, an anonymous figure chopping buds off a bunch of roses ― they certainly nailed the tone of the original 1964 series. And, judging by the comments below, the trailer fooled a fair number of TV fans, if only for a single, blissful minute. (”This pulled straight at my heart,” wrote one.)

Commenters began throwing out spot-on casting suggestions ― Eva Green as Morticia, Oscar Isaac as Gomez ― that any future remake would now require.

We regret to report that the original episodes aren’t available to stream on Netflix, nor is the 1991 film. In their absence, we will have to settle for “titles related to” the kooky series.

— 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.

That Chicken Nugget Tweet Is On Course To Become The Most Retweeted Of All Time

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

One teen’s insatiable appetite for chicken nuggets is about to break a big record.

A tweet that Carter Wilkerson posted online last Wednesday night is on course to overtake Ellen DeGeneres’ famous Oscars selfie as the most retweeted ever.

The 16-year-old’s post has been shared on the micro-blogging service more than 2.4 million times ― though the figure falls short of the 18 million retweets that fast-food chain Wendy’s challenged him to achieve when he asked how many he’d need to win a year of free chicken nuggets.

But it’s fast creeping up on the 3.2 million retweets (and counting) achieved by the 2014 Oscars selfie DeGeneres orchestrated ― featuring stars including Brad Pitt, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Lupita Nyong’o,Meryl Streep, Kevin Spacey and Channing Tatum.

If Wilkerson’s Twitter post continues to rack up an average of 400,000 retweets per day, then he could smash that record by Thursday.

Before DeGeneres’ star-studded post, the most retweeted was former President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election celebration. That has been retweeted more than 940,000 times.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=566bea45e4b0e292150e13e6,58a5596ce4b037d17d24dae2,58db6a92e4b054637063411a,58e69d1fe4b07b26c000b6fd

— 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.

Here's What The Nuts You Snack On Actually Do For Your Body

We’ve all heard that nuts make a healthy snack in moderation, despite their high fat content. Even Barack Obama has admitted to eating a handful of (seven) almonds every day. A study from 2015 found that eating a small handful of nuts a day could help you live longer, and it turns out the fat in those nuts actually does our bodies good.

But what exactly are you getting from your afternoon snack of nuts?

Our friends at Fix.com got to the bottom of it. They gathered the health benefits found in your typical nut mix and broke it down in the infographic below. Check it out: 

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=582b536be4b0aa8910bd21be,560987dbe4b0af3706dd3ac9,56e71e8fe4b065e2e3d6f187,57dfe161e4b04a1497b55252

— 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.

Asparagus Recipes That Taste Like Spring

When spring arrives there’s one thing you should be sure to do ― and we’re not talking about cleaning. You should make sure to eat asparagus, whether it’s the traditional green kind of the vampire-like white variety. This quintessential springtime veggie might be available at your store most of the year, but it’s only during the spring season that this vegetable is as flavorful and tender as it should be. 

Some people are turned off by asparagus because of how it effects the smell of their pee ― yes, this is real, and yes it happens to everyone, whether you’re able to smell it or not ― but the recipes below are more than worth the side effect.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… + articlesList=55c0c585e4b06f8bedb5e68b,586e66c3e4b0c4be0af324ba,56c5e1c6e4b08ffac127cfce

— 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.

The Morning After: Tuesday, April 11th 2017

Hey, good morning! You look fabulous.

This Morning After is brought to you by the death of phone calls on flights (hooray!), how Persona 5 manages to digitally manifest Tokyo and the news that the most valuable car company in the US is now Tesla –…

Feds Investigating Forcible Ejection of Passenger On Overbooked United Flight

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

The U.S. Department of Transportation has opened an investigation into the treatment of a United Airlines passenger who was forcibly dragged from a plane because the company had overbooked the flight. 

DOT said in a statement Monday evening that it was reviewing whether United complied with rules on overbooking flights that require airlines to establish a reasonable procedure on how to deal with passengers if they don’t volunteer to give up their seats:

Several videos show security personnel prying the man out of his seat and dragging him down the aisle of a plane in Chicago shortly before it was to take off on Sunday to Louisville, Kentucky.

The man was screaming and his lip apparently bloodied as several people on the plane expressed their disgust at his treatment.

United CEO Oscar Munoz issued a statement expressing remorse for the incident. But in an email to employees obtained by ABC he said that while he the situation “upset” him, the passenger was “disruptive and belligerent.”

One of the officers involved in the incident has been suspended, pending an investigation, Chicago’s Department of Aviation security confirmed in a statement. 

“The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the department,” spokeswoman Karen Pride said.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=58eb79b3e4b058f0a0309da4,58ebbfebe4b0c89f91205466

— 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.

Ventriloquists Swapping Voices Will Totally Mess With Your Mind

Trying to keep track of exactly who’s saying what in this mind-melting ventriloquism video may be tricky.

Finland-based ventriloquists Rudi Rok and Sari Aalto talk and sing to each other ― but using each other’s voices ― in the trippy clip, which is now going viral. 

“What is this witchcraft?” Rok appears to say in Aalto’s voice mid-way through the video. Yep, we want to know too!

Check it out in the clip above.

H/T Laughing Squid

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=563a4ff8e4b0307f2cab9b79

— 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.