Tag Archives: country

Javier Bardem Joins Glee As Metal Rocker

If you have an Oscar, you probably don’t have to wait in the long audition lines to be on Glee . Case in point: Academy Award-winner Javier Bardem, who, after watching the entire first season of the Fox series in a week, pitched Ryan Murphy the role of a successful rocker who becomes friends with Artie (Kevin McHale). “We’re going to rock the house,” anticipated Bardem. “We’re going to do some heavy metal — Spanish heavy metal, which is the worst.” The No Country for Old Men star just worked with Glee creator Murphy on the set of Eat, Pray, Love . [ EW ]

See the original post:
Javier Bardem Joins Glee As Metal Rocker

Delaying School Start Times Benefits Teens

“Researchers delayed the start time of a single school in Rhode Island by a half hour. After the change, students got 45 minutes more snooze time on average and reported feeling less fatigued and depressed. Absences during first period and visits to the health center for fatigue also declined. However, since the study involved only one school, the results might not necessarily apply to the general population, the researchers say. The school was also not typical in that about 80 percent of students were boarding there. Nonetheless, the findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that postponing school starts can have a number of payoffs for teens. While the researchers don't advocate that all high schools across the country change their schedules, they say it is something to ponder. “Even a modest delay in school start time, a half hour, can have a very significant impact on quality of life and health and mood of adolescents,” said study researcher Dr. Judith Owens, director of the Pediatric Sleep Disorder Center at Hasbro Children's Hospital in Providence, RI. Although such a change can be challenging in terms of coordinating a schedule shift, “I think the evidence really is mounting that it's an undertaking that's well worth at least considering,” Owens said. http://www.livescience.com/culture/school-start-time-teens-100705.html added by: DeliaTheArtist

WaPo Art Critic Slams Norman Rockwell as Lacking ‘Courage’

Artist Norman Rockwell’s thought crime seems to be that he wasn’t a kneejerk liberal. And for that, he has earned an angry leftwing rant from Washington Post art critic Blake Gopnik who claimed that Rockwell lacked “courage” for not glorifying leftwing causes. Rockwell’s “Four Freedoms” series? It disgusts Gopnik because it “doesn’t invoke a communist printing his pamphlets or an atheist on a soapbox.” So if Gopnik can’t stand the popular Norman Rockwell, just what kind of art does he like? You can find out below the fold but a warning: please be sure you are not consuming liquids while viewing an example of Gopnik art or you risk spewing it over your computer monitor when you burst out laughing. However, before we take a look at Gopniks laughable taste in art, let us join him in mid-rant as he tells us how much he absolutely hates Norman Rockwell: Norman Rockwell is often championed as the great painter of American virtues. Yet the one virtue most nearly absent from his work is courage. He doesn’t challenge any of us, or himself, to think new thoughts or try new acts or look with fresh eyes. From the docile realism of his style to the received ideas of his subjects, Rockwell reliably keeps us right in the middle of our comfort zone.  And here is more of Gopnik leaving the sanity zone: Rockwell’s greatest sin as an artist is simple: His is an art of unending cliché. The reason we so easily “recognize ourselves” in his paintings is because they reflect the standard image we already know. His stories resonate so strongly because they are the stories we’ve told ourselves a thousand times.  …America isn’t about Rockwell’s one-note image of it — or anyone else’s. This country is about a game-changing guarantee that equal room will be made for Latino socialists, disgruntled lesbian spinsters, foul-mouthed Jewish comics and even, dare I say it, for metrosexual half-Canadian art critics with a fondness for offal, spinets and kilts. Speaking of offal, here is an example of the kind of art Gopnik likes:  That’s right. A smudgy piece of ugly printing is considered great art by Gopnik. Of course, to Gopnik art is all about politics even to the extent of the need for affirmative action art. Here he is analyzing art quotas of works that appeared in the Obama White House: They seem to redress past imbalances in the nation’s sense of its own art….But there are still only six works by women, vs. 41 by men. And there are no works at all by Latinos. (A work by the deceased Cuban American artist Félix González-Torres would have filled the gap perfectly, and added a nod to the country’s gay culture. The Smithsonian’s Hirshhorn Museum has one that could have been borrowed.) Bottom line: it is politics, not really art that has Gopnik so upset at Norman Rockwell. And compared to what he considers good art, those velvet paintings that used to be sold at gas stations look like masterpieces.

Read the rest here:
WaPo Art Critic Slams Norman Rockwell as Lacking ‘Courage’

1 in 4 Americans Don’t Know Shit

So they did a poll to see if native born, all American citizens know why we celebrate the 4th of July. They found that about three-quarters of residents — 74% — know the U.S. declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776. The bad news for the academic system — 26% do not. This 26% includes one-fifth who are unsure and 6% who thought the U.S. separated from another nation. Countries mentioned are France, China, Japan, Mexico, and Spain. I think this is an AMAZING result. Considering that a good 10% of Americans probably have Alzheimer’s. Then another 5% are just regular crazy people. And probably 11% of Americans got offended that some annoying academic calling them up during dinner to ask inane question and answered, “The United States won its independence from the country of Bite Me.” See the complete table at sushibandit.com added by: SushiBandit

Fact Checking ABC’s This Week: Most Statements PolitiFact Sees as ‘False’ Uttered by Democrats

Back in April, as ABC’s Jake Tapper took over as interim host of This Week (pending the arrival of ex-CNNer Christiane Amanpour in August), the show asked the fact-checkers at PolitiFact to evaluate the truthfulness of statements made on the show . After nearly three months, the results show far more Democrats and liberals earning a “False” rating, with most of the “True” ratings going to Republicans and conservatives. The discrepency remains even if you take into account that about two-thirds of the evaluated statements came from Democrats in the first place. From April 11 through June 20, PolitiFact has handed out seven “False” statements — six to Democrats/liberals, one to a Republican. During that same time, seven “True” labels were handed out — four for Republicans/conservatives, just two for Democrats (one, ironically, going to former President Bill Clinton). Retired General Colin Powell also picked up a “True” for a statement about the number of troops President Obama has deployed to Afghanistan, but it’s hard to say which side Powell represents these days. PolitiFact is a project of St. Petersburg Times Washington bureau chief Bill Adair, who is a frequent “fact check” guest during election years. Some of the statements hardly seem worthy of a fact-check (such as Clinton’s assertion that he never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate; who ever said that he did?), but here are the 14 instances of “True” and “False” labeling of statements made on This Week, along with a short quote from PolitiFact’s verdict: Democrats/Liberals : Charles Schumer, April 11: “No one questioned that she (Judge Sotomayor) was out of the mainstream.” FALSE : “We recalled that phrase came up a lot during the Sotomayor confirmation debate, so we did some checking. To start, we direct your attention to a July 13, 2009, AP story under the headline, ‘Sessions: Sonia Sotomayor “out of mainstream.”‘…And Sessions wasn’t the only Republican to invoke the ‘out of the mainstream’ claim….We understand that ‘out of the mainstream’ is a subjective term, but the fact is that a number of Republican senators used that exact phrase.” Former President Bill Clinton, April 18: “I never had a filibuster-proof Senate.” TRUE : “Senate records show Republicans held 43 seats when Clinton came into office, and they added another seat in June of that year with the election of Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas….Republicans won a majority of seats in the Senate in the 1994 elections and retained control of both houses throughout the remainder of Clinton’s presidency.” Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, April 25: “Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP … The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP.” TRUE : “Independent sources and experts confirm that, so we rate his statement True.” HBO Host Bill Maher, May 2: “Brazil got off oil in the last 30 years.” FALSE : “In 2008, Brazil ranked No. 7 on the list of the world’s countries that consume the most oil, using about 2.5 million barrels per day….It’s also embarking on more offshore drilling in some of the deepest waters for exploration. Brazil is hardly ‘off oil.'” Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, June 6: “Every major study that has been done by a legitimate group … shows that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs to be created if you pass our (cap-and-trade) legislation. And if you wind up pricing carbon.” FALSE : “The fact is that other ‘legitimate groups’ have performed studies and reached different conclusions. Kerry’s statement suggests there is some unanimity of opinion among legitimate organizations about cap-and-trade’s effect on jobs. And that’s just not so.” Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, June 6: Turkey is an Arab country. FALSE : “The one thing that Turkey has in common with the Arab world is religion: An estimated 99.8 percent of the Turkish population is Muslim….Moulitsas has graciously copped to his error (and even invited us to ding him), but the Truth-O-Meter doesn’t cut any slack for confessions.” Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, June 13: The Obama administration “has been constrained by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which basically gives the responsible party the lead role in trying to not only fix the problem, but contain the problem.” FALSE : “In fact, the Oil Pollution Act specifcially gives the federal government the authority to decide who’s in charge of the clean-up — the polluter or the government. The company, in this case BP, will pay for the clean-up response. But the federal government can give the orders if it chooses.” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, June 20: “In the case of General Motors, the (Bush) administration wrote a check without asking for any conditions of change.” FALSE : “The Bush administration did put specific requirements on the auto companies that included paying down debt, limits on executive compensation, and negotiated reductions in wages and benefits for autoworkers. It also required the companies to submit detailed restructuring plans by Feb. 17, 2009, that would show how the company planned to achieve and sustain ‘long-term viability, international competitiveness and energy efficiency.'” Republicans/Conservatives : Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, April 11: “President Obama himself attempted to filibuster Justice Alito, who now sits on the Supreme Court.” TRUE : “We found that Obama did join a broader Democratic effort to filibuster Alito. Democrats said Alito opposed abortion and was too deferential to executive power. But in what’s become Obama’s trademark on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand style, he joined the filibuster while at the same time saying he thought it was a bad idea.” Jon Kyl, April 11: Says he did not say Republicans would filibuster immigration reform. FALSE : “Kyl’s staff provided us with a transcript and video; they said it showed more context for Kyl’s statement. We reviewed the material; here’s an extended version of Kyl remarks: ‘My guess is, neither (card check and immigration reform) will have the votes to pass. But because political promises have been made to key constituency of the party that is in power, that they’re going to do something about these problems, they will bring up very partisan legislation. Republicans will, primarily Republicans, will vote it down, that is to say we will prevent it from coming up through the filibuster….'” GOP Chairman Michael Steele, May 23: In Hawaii, “they don’t have a history of throwing incumbents out of office.” TRUE : “Depending how you count it, that puts the re-election rate in Hawaii between 98 percent and 100 percent, which is higher than the national average over the same period….No incumbent has ever lost a November congressional election in Hawaii.” Michael Steele, May 23: The Republican Party “fought very hard in the ’60s to get the civil rights bill passed, as well as the voting rights bill.” TRUE : “The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time.” House Minority Leader John Boehner, June 13: “The House has never failed to pass a budget in the modern era.” TRUE : “According to the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, the House has indeed passed a budget every year since the Congressional Budget Act first took effect for fiscal year 1976.” Goes Both Ways : Retired General Colin Powell, May 30: “The president has added close to 68,000 troops in the last year, since he came into office, not just the 30,000 you hear, but the others that were added before that.” TRUE : “Obama took office with about 34,000 troops. There are now 94,000 troops and closing in on 98,000 troops by summer. When you count small additions by NATO, that gets us close to 68,000.” As with many political statements, there were many “Mostly True” (5 Dem vs. 2 GOP, plus Joe Lieberman), “Barely True” (2 Dem vs. 1 GOP, plus a BP official), and “Half True” assertions (9 Dem/Lib vs. 2 GOP/Con) catalogued over the past three months. You can see the whole list at PolitiFact.com .

See the original post here:
Fact Checking ABC’s This Week: Most Statements PolitiFact Sees as ‘False’ Uttered by Democrats

Why the Taliban is winning in Afghanistan

One of them asked me, 'Why do you hate us?' I replied, 'Because you blow down our doors, enter our houses, pull our women by the hair and kick our children. We cannot accept this. We will fight back, and we will break your teeth, and when your teeth are broken you will leave, just as the British left before you. It is just a matter of time.'” What did he say to that? “He turned to his friend and said, 'If the old men are like this, what will the younger ones be like?' In truth, all the Americans here know that their game is over. It is just their politicians who deny this.” The defeat of the west's latest puppet government on the very same hill of Gandamak where the British came to grief in 1842 made me think, on the way back to Kabul, about the increasingly close parallels between the fix that Nato is in and the one faced by the British 170 years ago. Now as then, the problem is not hatred of the west, so much as a dislike of foreign troops swaggering around and making themselves odious to the very people they are meant to be helping. On the return journey, as we crawled back up the passes towards Kabul, we got stuck behind a US military convoy of eight Humvees and two armoured personnel carriers in full camouflage, all travelling at less than 20 miles per hour. Despite the slow speed, the troops refused to let any Afghan drivers overtake them, for fear of suicide bombers, and they fired warning shots at any who attempted to do so. By the time we reached the top of the pass two hours later, there were 300 cars and trucks backed up behind the convoy, each one full of Afghans furious at being ordered around in their own country by a group of foreigners. Every day, small incidents of arrogance and insensitivity such as this make the anger grow. There has always been an absolute refusal by the Afghans to be ruled by foreigners, or to accept any government perceived as being imposed on the country from abroad. Now as then, the puppet ruler installed by the west has proved inadequate to the job. Too weak, unpopular and corrupt to provide security or development, he has been forced to turn on his puppeteers in order to retain even a vestige of legitimacy in the eyes of his people. Recently, Karzai has accused the US, the UK and the UN of orchestrating a fraud in last year's elections, described Nato forces as “an army of occupation”, and even threatened to join the Taliban if Washington kept putting pressure on him. Shah Shuja did much the same thing in 1842, towards the end of his rule, and was known to have offered his allegiance and assistance to the insurgents who eventually toppled and beheaded him. Now as then, there have been few tangible signs of improvement under the western-backed regime. Despite the US pouring approximately $80bn into Afghanistan, the roads in Kabul are still more rutted than those in the smallest provincial towns of Pakistan. There is little health care; for any severe medical condition, patients still have to fly to India. A quarter of all teachers in Afghanistan are themselves illiterate. In many areas, district governance is almost non-existent: half the governors do not have an office, more than half have no electricity, and most receive only $6 a month in expenses. Civil servants lack the most basic education and skills. This is largely because $76.5bn of the $80bn committed to the country has been spent on military and security, and most of the remaining $3.5bn on international consultants, some of whom are paid in excess of $1,000 a day, according to an Afghan government report. This, in turn, has had other negative effects. As in 1842, the presence of large numbers of well-paid foreign troops has caused the cost of food and provisions to rise, and living standards to fall. The Afghans feel they are getting poorer, not richer. There are other similarities. Then as now, the war effort was partially privatised: it was not so much the British army as a corp

Was Maddow’s Criticism of Sharron Angle Also a Swipe at Olbermann?

You might wonder the same after hearing what Rachel Maddow said in response to GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle’s contentious interview with Las Vegas Sun columnist and local cable show host Jon Ralston. Maddow, as is her wont, criticized Angle for avoiding left-leaning media prior to Ralston interviewing her June 29 — followed by Maddow criticizing Angle after the interview. Suffice it to say, had Ralston ended up begging for mercy from Angle, Maddow would have accused Angle of torture. “But when Sharron Angle’s political career ended last night on local television in Nevada,” Maddow said on her show Wednesday, “it was a perfect case study in what happens if you don’t ever talk to people with whom you disagree.” After showing excepts from the interview, Maddow also said this (first part of embedded video) — MADDOW: But the bigger story here and the more unexpected story here is how curdled and pitiful and inbred policy and even argument itself gets when it is never exposed to opposing views, how weak the political and rhetorical muscles get when they are allowed to atrophy. So, I lament the no-argue bubbles . I lament the reluctance of conservatives and Republican politicians in particular to come on this show, in part because arguing is fun and talking to people with whom you disagree is fun. But also because it makes us all better at what we do. And that’s good for us and if you are a politician, that is good for the country. That being the case, how could Maddow miss the fact that her MSNBC show is preceded every weeknight by the best example of a “no-argue bubble” on television — “Countdown with Keith Olbermann”. In June, for example, “Countdown” had 54 guests, according to OlbermannWatch.com . Of that 54, 38 were described as liberal/progressive, 11 were Democratic politicians, and five were Democratic strategists. The number of Republican politicians, according to Olbermann Watch — zero . Republican strategists — zero . Guests described as conservative or traditional — zero . Same thing happened in May with the least happy warrior on television, aside from the obvious exception of Olbermann’s red-faced, bellicose colleague Ed Schultz. As noted again by the intrepid observers at Olbermann Watch, Olbermann had 52 guests that month. Of them, 9 were Democratic pols, 11 were Democratic strategists and 32 described as liberal/progressive. The number of Republican politicians — zero . Republican strategists — zero . Conservative/traditional — zero . “Curdled and pitiful and inbred,” indeed. Olbermann’s weak stomach for dissent became so conspicious that he was obligated to address the issue in a promo that ran in May (second part of embedded video). In the promo, Olbermann claims that “the premise of the guests is often misunderstood as some sort of, you know, political reinforcement or (sarcastically) Keith gets only the guys who agree with him. I ask a lot of these questions to find out whether or not I’m wildly incorrect about something. The point of the show is to illuminate. It is not to throw off heat. It is to throw off light.” As if the two are mutually exclusive, a belief belied by the presence of that warm, glowing orb in the sky on a clear day. And seldom does an illuminating cross examination in court, “the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth” as described by jurist John Henry Wigmore in 1904, not generate heat. All three of the guests shown in Olbermann’s promo were Democratic politicians and the promo was justifiably slammed by NewsBuster Mark Finkelstein, who pointed out the fatal flaw in Olbermann’s unctuous claim — “He’s unlikely to find out if he’s wrong if he hand picks guests who think he’s right !” Seeing how Maddow was careful to limit her lament about “no-argue bubbles” to conservatives and Republican politicians, Olbermann may not take offense at Maddow the way he did after Donny Deutsch stated the obvious by including Olbermann in a list of “angry talkers” in media. To her credit, Maddow does include occasional conservatives as guests and frequently mentions that others were invited and turned her down. “I lament the reluctance of conservatives and Republican politicians in particular to come on this show,” Maddow said on Wednesday, “in part because arguing is fun and talking to people with whom you disagree is fun.” But while Maddow doesn’t share Olbermann’s aversion to opposing views, it’s what she does after the occasional conservative appears on her show that has others keeping their distance. Best example — Maddow’s shabby misquoting of Pat Buchanan in July 2009, after what he stated as a hypothetical she claimed on her show four days later that he stated as fact. Not surprisingly, Buchanan hasn’t been back on her show since. (h/t, Tim Graham)

Original post:
Was Maddow’s Criticism of Sharron Angle Also a Swipe at Olbermann?

Proposed Changes To Brazil’s Forest Code Could Cause Massive Deforestation

photo via flickr While Brazil’s soccer team is making all of the headlines, there is more serious news affecting the country than the plight of Kaka. The Amazon rainforest is under immediate threat due to proposed changes to environment legislation called the Brazilian Forest Code. If the changes are accepted, deforestation could be set to double. … Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read more from the original source:
Proposed Changes To Brazil’s Forest Code Could Cause Massive Deforestation

Led By Leahy And DeFazio, 56 Members Of House And Senate Ask USDA To Keep Rules On Genetically Engineered Alfalfa

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), joined by 49 other representatives and five other senators, are asking U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to retain the regulated status of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa. Their letter comes in response to a USDA Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) finding “no significant impact” from the use of genetically modified versions of the crop. Leahy and DeFazio co-authored legislation to create the national organic standards and labeling program. Genetically modified crops are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to review the environmental impacts of proposed actions, such as USDA’s proposed deregulation of a genetically modified seed. In their letter, the lawmakers assert that the draft USDA findings about genetically engineered alfalfa cannot be justified. They warn that GE alfalfa would contaminate the crops of both conventional and organic alfalfa farmers, resulting in significant economic harm to alfalfa seed producers and to the organic dairy industry. The fast growing organic dairy sector currently generates about $1.4 billion in sales. “Consumers today respect and rely on what the USDA certified organic seal represents, which includes no GE contamination,” says the letter headed by Leahy and DeFazio. “If the USDA organic seal no longer represents a GE-free product, the integrity of the entire organic industry in this country will be compromised and consumers may no longer choose organic products.” This week (on June 21) the U.S. Supreme Court announced its 7 to 1 decision in a case related to the USDA’s potential deregulation of GE alfalfa. In the Monsanto Co. v Geerston Seed Farms decision, the court ordered the lifting of a nationwide permanent injunction on GE alfalfa. The case is widely viewed as having broad implications beyond alfalfa crops, potentially affecting the hundreds of GE food applications that have been submitted to USDA to determine environmental threats and seeking approval for use. cont. added by: JanforGore

Today Show Marks One Year Anniversary of Palin’s Decision to ‘Cash In’

To mark the one year anniversary of Sarah Palin stepping down from her duties as governor of Alaska, NBC’s Norah O’Donnell, on Friday’s Today show, recounted for viewers what the former vice presidential candidate is doing, namely “cashing in.” Accompanied by a “cha-ching” sound effect O’Donnell ran down Palin’s various TV and book deals. And while O’Donnell also noted Palin has been very effective stumping for GOP candidates in the primaries she was careful to note that the “polarizing” Palin had “limits to her appeal,” as she cited an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll saying 52 percent view her political endorsements negatively. Along with the poll and TV and book deals, O’Donnell also included “her teenage daughter’s tumultuous relationship with Levi Johnston,” and “her rage” at author Joe McGinnis “who’s moved directly next door to her Wasilla home ” as negatives. How exactly Palin’s “rage” at a writer/stalker moving next door to her family home could be seen as a limit to her appeal wasn’t fully explained. The following is the full segment as it was aired on the July 2 Today show: MATT LAUER: It was a year ago tomorrow that Sarah Palin made the surprise announcement that she was resigning as the governor of Alaska. And a lot has changed in the past 12 months. NBC’s Norah O’Donnell has details on that. Norah, good morning. [On screen headline: “‘Going Rogue’ Sarah Palin, One Year After Resigning As Governor”] NORAH O’DONNELL: A lot has changed. You know she may be the most controversial and polarizing figure in politics today, but she’s also helped elect some new stars in the Republican Party, while at the same time becoming a multi-millionaire. One year ago Sarah Palin shocked everyone, announcing she would resign as governor of Alaska with 18 months still left on her term. SARAH PALIN: It would be apathetic to just kind of hunker down and go with the flow. We’re fishermen. We know that only dead fish go with the flow. PAT BUCHANAN: If Sarah Palin was thinking about being President of the United States, she’s taking a real step backward. O’DONNELL: But if anything, Palin has surged forward. More visible- JAY LENO: Thanks for coming! How are you doing? O’DONNELL: And possibly more influential than ever. PALIN: How is that hopey-changey stuff working out for ya? O’DONNELL: Especially in recent Republican primaries, backing Tea Party candidates across the country and women like South Carolina’s Nikki Haley. PALIN: Nikki had the backbone to vote against taking the Obama stimulus money. O’DONNELL: Her power is fueled but her political action committee with a deep war chest and a vast army of Facebook and Twitter followers. ANNE KORNBLUT, THE WASHINGTON POST: She does still have a very loud megaphone when she tweets, when she’s on Facebook. She still has the power to affect a policy debate when she wants to. O’DONNELL: But there may be limits to her appeal. A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 52 percent see her political endorsements negatively. And for Sarah Palin, the family dramas that captivated America during the campaign have continued. There’s her teenage daughter’s tumultuous relationship with Levi Johnston. PALIN: I hear he goes by the name Ricky Hollywood now. O’DONNELL: Her rage at an author who’s moved directly next door to her Wasilla home, where he’s writing a book about her. JOE MCGINNISS: She has pushed a button and unleashed the hounds of hell and now we’re out there slavering and barking and growling. O’DONNELL OVER “CHA-CHING” SOUND EFFECT: The national fascination with the Palins has not abated and Sarah Palin is cashing in, going from $125,000 a year to an estimated $12 million. There’s her blockbuster bestseller Going Rogue, on that deal, $7 million. Her own TV show on TLC, on that deal, $2 million. And an exclusive contract with Fox News channel, $1 million. And as for her speeches, she makes as much as $100,000 a pop and even those aren’t without controversy. PALIN: Got my water? Do I have my straws? I want my straws. And I want them bent, please. Thank you. At least that’s what I read in some of the lame stream media outlets, is that I was demanding straws. O’DONNELL: Well her next project is a new book called America By Heart. It’s due in November and she is also expected to be out there again on another book tour, Matt. And the crowds come out for her. LAUER: Oh and we continue to talk about her. There’s no question about it. Norah, thanks very much. O’DONNELL: You’re welcome. LAUER: Good to see you.

Continued here:
Today Show Marks One Year Anniversary of Palin’s Decision to ‘Cash In’