Hasta La Gadget!

Twinsies!

Last week, Denver Dodd, a 25-year-old from Fort Smith, Arkansas, posted a picture of his 72-year-old grandma, Geraldine, to Reddit.

Why?

Because she looked exactly like actress Scarlett Johansson back in 1967.

Dodd explained to HuffPost that his grandpa (who was the man with his grandma in the picture) died last January. “So we pulled out old photos just looking through them. You know, just being all sappy and stuff. And we happened to see that picture from a scrapbook,” Dodd told HuffPost.

When Dodd found the photo, Geraldine laughed and told him, “I was drunk as a skunk in that photo.”

Despite his granny’s state of mind, Dodd was so taken aback by Geraldine’s resemblance to Johansson in the photo, he took a picture of it.

Last week, he decided to post the photo to the popular content-sharing site. The post quickly went viral, receiving over 2 million views. In the comments, Dodd also mentioned Geraldine’s quote about being drunk.

Due to the popularity of the photo, Johansson caught wind of it and checked the picture out.

The actress was stunned, and recorded her thoughts on a video she sent to Dodd.

“Holy crap,” Johansson says in the video, right before she invites Geraldine to the premiere of her upcoming comedy, “Rough Night,” so the two can party together.

“I saw that you were, quote, ‘drunk as a skunk’ when taking that photo. And I would like to see your drunk face, I want to share a drunk face with you,” Johansson said.

In the video, Johansson also offers to pay for all Geraldine’s expenses in order to get her to the premiere.

Dodd told HuffPost that he told Geraldine the good news via text and his grandma accepted the actress’ offer. Geraldine also added in the text: “I’m going to drink with her and see if I can drink her under the table.”

Aw, Geraldine, never change.

— 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.

WASHINGTON ― A pair of Republican lawmakers launched a caucus on Thursday aimed at ensuring the “victory of Israel in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” The legislators seek to replace peace talks with a policy that could be seen as greenlighting Israeli aggression towards Palestinians.

“Israel Victory Caucus” co-chairs Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) and Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) are partnering with Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, has described Pipes as an “anti-Muslim activist.”

In various writings over the years, Pipes has encouraged law enforcement to profile Muslims; called for the banning of burqas and niqabs, coverings worn by some religious Muslim women; argued that Obama was “born and raised a Muslim,” and opposed the construction of an Islamic center near Ground Zero in Manhattan, warning that “this initiative carries the unmistakable odor of Islamic triumphalism” and was lead by “unsavory Islamists.”

Pipes has also blogged for the Center for Security Policy, a group headed by fellow anti-Islam extremist Frank Gaffney, who was seated in the audience on Thursday.  

The presence of figures like Pipes and Gaffney on Capitol Hill highlights the increasing role that far-right figures playing in the policy world under President Donald Trump. The speakers on Thursday’s panel praised the president’s campaign promise to relocate the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but their recommendation to abandon efforts to reach a peace deal between the two parties goes far beyond any policy statement by the Trump administration.

DeSantis, Johnson, and Pipes made no mention of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, now reaching its 50th year. They described the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the result of Palestinian refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. (Palestinian leadership has vocalized acceptance of Israel’s right to exist at various times over the years and it is widely accepted that this type of recognition would be included in any two-state solution.) 

The definition of Israeli victory and how it should be achieved, according to the caucus, was vague. “Victory means imposing your will on your enemy so he no longer wants to continue to fight,” Pipes said. “What I want the U.S. government to do is say, ‘Israel, do what you need to do to win your war.’”

Victory means imposing your will on your enemy so he no longer wants to continue to fight.
Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum

This scenario, according to Pipes, would benefit the Palestinians, much in the way Germany benefited from the defeat of the Nazis in World War II. “They became a normal country. Well, Palestinians need to become a normal people and this is the way to do it,” he added.

When a pair of protesters from the anti-war group CodePink entered the room, Middle East Forum Director Gregg Roman ordered them out before they could speak. They squeezed in a few calls for justice for Palestinians as they were escorted out, but were partially drowned out by an audience member who yelled, “Terrorist supporters out!”

Throughout Thursday’s launch event, members of the Israel Victory Caucus invoked religious references to explain their policy in the region. DeSantis talked about the “shared Judeo-Christian” values between the U.S. and Israel. “I don’t know who man thinks we are to refute the deed that God put in place, but I can tell you I believe that Israel’s homeland is the land that God set aside for her,” Johnson said.

I don’t know who man thinks we are to refute the deed that God put in place, but I can tell you I believe that Israel’s homeland is the land that God set aside for her.
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio)

Neither lawmaker discussed the territorial boundaries they believe would constitute an Israeli victory ― but Johnson appears to view areas in the occupied Palestinian territories as part of the land God “set aside for Israel.” Recalling his first trip to Israel, Johnson said the hair on the back of his neck stood up when he zip lined over the Hebron Valley and realized he was traveling the same path as the biblical figures Abraham and Isaac.

Today Hebron is a Palestinian city in the occupied West Bank with a significant population of Israeli settlers. It is a flashpoint for violence between the two parties and human rights groups have documented Israeli authorities’ failure to hold settlers responsible for attacks on Palestinians.

DeSantis and Johnson’s views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which run counter to decades of Republican support for negotiated peace for a two-state solution, do not appear to be attracting widespread support. Only three other House Republicans ― Reps. Keith Rothfus (Pa.), Alex Mooney (W.V.), Doug Lamborn (Colo.) ―  appeared at the launch event on Thursday. Asked for a full list of caucus members, a DeSantis spokeswoman said she could only confirm her boss and Johnson as co-chairs.

Dylan Williams, the vice president of government affairs at J Street, a left-leaning pro-Israel group, warned against dismissing what he described as a “small fringe of the Republican party.”

“They are small, but increasingly influential ― and we saw their impact when all mention of two states was removed from the GOP platform last summer,” Williams said in a statement.

— 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 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is overwhelmingly white. Just three percent of its members were black as of 2009, and 15 percent of Mormons were non-white in 2014, according to Pew Research Center.

For some black Mormons, the lack of diversity in the church can make things awkward at times. In a video posted Tuesday on the Facebook page, LDS Living, two black Mormon authors offer a lesson in tact to their white co-religionists. 

Tamu Smith and Zandra Vranes, co-authors of Diary of Two Mad Black Mormons and creators of comedy duo Sistas in Zion, described some of the uncomfortable things black Mormons experience in church, from having people touch their hair to hearing people use slang in conversations with them.

A little tip from Smith: “Don’t speak slang to me if that’s not your native language.”

Among their “don’ts” for interacting with black Mormons are: “Don’t assume” things, including where they’re from, what they like to do or who they know.

“All black people don’t know each other. I cannot get Alex Boyé to speak at your farewell,” Vranes said.

For those who are curious, though, the women say: “It’s ok to talk about race.”

“It’s ok to ask me, ‘Are you black or are you African American,’” Smith said. “I’m both. And I’m also Tamu.”

The light-hearted framing of the video hints at the Mormon church’s complicated history with race. In 1852, church leader Brigham Young announced that men of African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, which is an important milestone for male members of the church. Black men and women were banned from participating in other meaningful church practices until 1978.

Today, many black Mormons still experience racism and daily micro-aggressions in their faith communities. The church has tried to reconcile its racist legacy by publishing a series of essays and guides on its official website, but some Mormons say it’s simply not enough.

Smith and Vranes suggest a path forward, though, in the form of open dialogue and greater honesty surrounding issues of race in the church.

“At church sometimes we say things like, ‘I don’t see color,’ which is not true. But it is awkward,” Smith said. “We understand that. We’re going to have some awkward moments. But we’re just going to ride this through, and we’re going to get through this because we’re all brothers and sisters and we’re in this together.”

— 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.

WASHINGTON ― When Ajit Pai, President Donald Trump’s pick to chair the Federal Communications Commission, announced his plan to roll back his own agency’s net neutrality rules on Wednesday, he sounded nervous.

“I am confident we will finish the job,” he said, in a somewhat stilted speech at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. “This is a fight we intend to wage, and this is a fight we are going to win.”

If Pai is nervous, he has good reason to be. Net neutrality is extremely popular with both Republicans and Democrats. The activists who support strong rules are loud and well-organized, and the organizations that oppose the rules — cable companies like Comcast and telecom providers like Verizon, HuffPost’s parent company — are not loved. When cable and telecom companies lost the fight against the Obama administration’s strong net neutrality rules in 2015, they lost badly. The fight this time could be even fiercer.

In 2014, then-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, a former cable and wireless industry lobbyist, said he was planning to avoid the strong net neutrality protections that activists were hoping for. Activists mobilized, fearing a dystopian future where telecom companies could censor websites or slow traffic for a profit. They launched national campaigns, painted Wheeler as a lobbyist sellout, and descended on his house. Comedian John Oliver famously compared the appointment of Wheeler to a dingo watching a baby. (Dingoes eat babies.)

Then-President Barack Obama publicly came out in support of strong net neutrality rules in November 2014, which conservatives have pointed to as evidence that he unduly influenced Wheeler. But the president simply added to the existing momentum, Wheeler said later. And big-weight tech companies had also joined activists in speaking out in support of an open internet. Wheeler proposed strong rules in February 2015 — rules that required reclassifying internet service providers as a “common carrier” under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act — and the FCC was flooded with public comments supporting the decision. The agency subsequently approved the rules in a 3-2 party-line vote.

Now, Pai wants to roll them back and allow the industry to police itself. The agency could take it a step further and propose eliminating any existing rulings on net neutrality, permitted they have a compelling legal case to do so, senior FCC officials told Recode on Thursday. Pai is expected to go through a lengthy rule-making process that includes a period of public comment. (People can start commenting on the draft released today, an agency spokesman said.)

Gigi Sohn, who previously served as counselor to Wheeler, estimates that the repeal process will take at least seven to 10 months. “We know from when we did the net neutrality rules, the groups will make it painful for every single day,” she said. “There will be emails, phone calls, protests ― it’s going to be a tsunami.”

Pai should know the backlash is coming: He’s active on Twitter, where he is already getting hammered by activists over his proposal. And as a former commissioner who voted against Wheeler’s rules, he was around for the last fight.

This time, the backlash could be even worse. Wheeler’s FCC issued the current net neutrality rules only after an appeals court said it did not have solid legal footing for earlier rules. But that same appeals court upheld the new, stronger rules last year, soundly rejecting arguments from AT&T and other groups that had sued to overturn them. (A petition to rehear the case is pending before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where judges appointed by Democratic presidents hold a solid majority.)

Activists are better-prepared for a fight this time, said David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, a leading pro-net-neutrality group. “People are better networked than they previously were, and are looking for opportunities to engage,” he told HuffPost. “We plan to make use of the internet to save the internet, as we did last time.”

A number of startups, including Engine Advocacy and Y Combinator, have already started circulating a letter opposing Pai’s actions. Public interest groups also created a crowdfunding effort to relaunch BattleForTheNet.com, an activism campaign to help protect the rules.

For now, some of the larger corporations that have supported net neutrality are keeping quiet. Google declined to comment, but directed a reporter to the Internet Association’s statement arguing against any rule change. (Google largely sat out the net neutrality fight in 2014, speaking through think tanks and industry groups then, too.)

Netflix, which became the poster child for net neutrality in 2014, also seems to have tempered its stance. Two days before Trump’s inauguration, the company told investors that weaker net neutrality laws would be unlikely to “materially affect” its U.S. profit margins, though Netflix still supports net neutrality. (Netflix did not respond to a request for comment.)

Pai will likely want support from Congress. But at a time when Republican members of Congress are dogged by angry protesters at nearly every town hall they host, that won’t be an easy ask.

“Congress is a very difficult playing field for him because members of Congress have been so overwhelmed by constituents contacting them in support of net neutrality,” Segal said.

Members of Congress in swing districts, already fearing an anti-Trump wave in 2018, may also shy away from what will likely be a bitter fight. And without an overwhelming majority that includes some Democrats, the specter of a filibuster looms over any net neutrality legislation.

Pai also has to be reconfirmed by the Senate by the end of 2017, and that may occur before his net neutrality fight is over. Though he has support from a GOP-controlled Congress, the outcome of the current battle could influence his reconfirmation chances.

“This is a litmus test,” Sohn said. “And he knows it.”

— 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.

Having a friend who mooches off you twice a day is usually annoying, but 81-year-old Mette Kvam doesn’t seem to mind.

Kvam lives alone in Aurland, Norway, and her friend is a wild deer named “Flippen.” He shows up at her doorstep twice a day looking for some grub, according to Inside Edition.

Flippen has been a daily visitor for the past three years and it’s not a one-sided friendship. In return for the goodies, he lets Kvam rub his head a little.

The friendship began in 2014, when Kvam saw the stag in her yard and offered him a cookie, according to the Good News Network. To her surprise, he cautiously accepted the snack.

Now he shows up for more food each day and family friend Britt Haugsevje Vangen couldn’t be happier.

“She says that they are so lucky for having each other,” Vangen told Caters News. “Mette has no kids and since her husband passed away she has no one ― she only has Flippen in her life now.”

Typically, wildlife experts advise people not to feed wild deer. Some human foods, like corn, can be disastrous for deer, with the wrong foods leading to serious disease and even death. It can also lead to them becoming dependent on humans for food.

However, in this case, the friendship appears to have paid off for Flippen. Local hunters who are aware of the friendship have made a point not to shoot the stag, according to Vangen.

— 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.