FILE - This April 7, 2013 file photo shows Garth Brooks performing at the 48th Annual Academy of Country Music Awards in Las Vegas, Nev. Brooks will perform a rare live broadcast concert special from the Encore Theater at the Wynn Las Vegas on Friday, Nov. 29. (Photo by Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP, File)
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Garth Brooks is taking his intimate one-man Las Vegas show to live television.
A news release issued Monday says CBS will broadcast Brooks' performance at the Wynn Las Vegas live on Nov. 29.
Brooks came out of retirement in 2009 for a series of occasional gigs at Steve Wynn's invitation. Brooks formally ended that run after three years, but has played occasionally since then.
The broadcast will be his final performance of the show, which has mostly been Brooks with just his guitar exploring his musical influences with fans.
Brooks has mostly been out of music since 2001, when he became a stay-at-home dad. But fans remain fervent, helping to set a record viewership for the Academy of Country Music Awards earlier this year when Brooks performed with George Strait.
Boston Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz applauds after hitting an RBI double during the first inning of Game 5 of baseball's World Series against the St. Louis Cardinals Monday, Oct. 28, 2013, in St. Louis. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)
Boston Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz applauds after hitting an RBI double during the first inning of Game 5 of baseball's World Series against the St. Louis Cardinals Monday, Oct. 28, 2013, in St. Louis. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)
Boston Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz hits an RBI double during the first inning of Game 5 of baseball's World Series against the St. Louis Cardinals Monday, Oct. 28, 2013, in St. Louis. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
Boston Red Sox's David Ortiz hits an RBI double during the first inning of Game 5 of baseball's World Series against the St. Louis Cardinals Monday, Oct. 28, 2013, in St. Louis. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
Boston Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz hits an RBI double during the first inning of Game 5 of baseball's World Series against the St. Louis Cardinals Monday, Oct. 28, 2013, in St. Louis. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)
St. Louis Cardinals catcher Yadier Molina watches as Boston Red Sox second baseman Dustin Pedroia scores on an RBI double by Boston Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz during the first inning of Game 5 of baseball's World Series Monday, Oct. 28, 2013, in St. Louis. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
ST. LOUIS (AP) — Dustin Pedroia and David Ortiz doubled on consecutive pitches from Adam Wainwright in the first, and the Boston Red Sox led the St. Louis Cardinals 1-0 after three innings Monday night as they tried to take a 3-2 World Series lead.
In a rematch of the opener, won by the Red Sox 8-1, Jon Lester held the Cardinals to a pair of hits in the first three innings, struck out four and walked none. He has thrown 10 2-3 scoreless innings in the Series.
Wainwright was nearly as good, striking out five consecutive batters and six in all during the first three innings. But a 21-pitch first left him at 47 pitches through three. He allowed just the two hits and walked none.
A pair of unique endings — the first postseason games to finish with an obstruction call and a pickoff — left players wondering what strange events would be next. They did know the Series would go back to Boston's Fenway Park on Wednesday night, when John Lackey starts for the Red Sox and rookie Michael Wacha for the Cardinals. Wacha got the victory and Lackey the loss in Game 2, won by the Cardinals 4-2.
In the 42 previous times the Series has been tied 2-2, the Game 5 winner has gone on to take the title 27 times — but just three of the last 10.
Wainwright fell behind nine pitches in. Pedroia doubled with one out, sending a hanging curveball into left field. Ortiz pulled the next pitch between Allen Craig and first base and down the right field line.
Ortiz improved his Series batting average to .750 (9 for 12) with two homers and six RBIs.
Allen Craig was not in the Cardinals' original lineup and was a surprise starter at first base in place of the slumping Matt Adams. Craig sprained a ligament in his left foot last month and had not played in the field since Sept. 4. Carlos Beltran was moved down two spots in the order to cleanup.
Boston right fielder Shane Victorino was out of the starting lineup for the second straight night because of lower back stiffness. Jonny Gomes, Victorino's replacement in the batting order, hit a tiebreaking three-run homer in the 4-2 Red Sox win Sunday and was moved up a spot to cleanup. Ortiz was bumped up to third.
The Red Sox won their last World Series title exactly six years earlier, and St. Louis won Game 7 at home on the same date in 2011.
With the Lions hosting Seattle at the nearby Edward Jones Dome, the World Series and an NFL Monday night were played in the same area on the same night for the first time since Boston lost Game 7 of the 1986 Series at the New York Mets. The NFL Giants hosted Washington that evening at Giants Stadium.
NOTES: Boston batters easily broke the record for strikeouts in a postseason. They began the night with 142, tying the mark set by the 2010 San Francisco Giants.
Our children these days might be called digital natives, kids who grow up surrounded by and immersed in digital media. How does that affect childhood? How might it affect their adulthood? This week All Tech Considered kicks off a week of stories about kids and technology.
This is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News. I'm Robert Siegel.
AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:
And I'm Audie Cornish. And it's time for All Tech Considered.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
CORNISH: This week, we're exploring the subject of kids and technology. Children growing up these days are surrounded by and often immersed in digital media. You might call them digital natives. And we're going to explore what it's like to raise them.
Technology correspondent Steve Henn joins us now. Hey there, Steve.
STEVE HENN, BYLINE: Hi.
CORNISH: So we're going to hear several of these stories over the next few days about parenting in the digital age, right? Give us the frame here.
HENN: Right. Well, you might remember about a month ago, the comedian Louis C.K. went on a rant on the Conan O'Brien show about teens, parents and cell phones.
(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, 'CONAN')
LOUIS C.K.: Some parents really struggle with like, all the other kids have the terrible thing so my kid has to. Yeah, let - you know, let your kids go and be a better example to the (bleep) kids. Yeah, just because all the other stupid kids have phones, doesn't mean that oh, OK, well, my kid has to be stupid otherwise she'll feel weird.
HENN: What struck us was how well Louis C.K. expressed his own fears about what all this technology was doing to his own kids, and we think a lot of parents probably feel that way. So this week we are going to help you out. If you're a parent or a kid, or were just a kid once, we have a bunch of stories coming on everything from video games to bullying. And we want to hear from you, our audience, about how technology is changing the way children and teens grow up. You can go to NPR's All Tech Considered blog to tell us about your own experiences.
CORNISH: And, of course, just this morning, the American Academy of Pediatrics released updated guidelines on whether parents should even allow screen time. So Steve, I mean, what are they saying there?
HENN: Well, the last time the academy made recommendations like these was about five years ago. Back then, they recommended no more than two hours of screen time a day for older kids and nothing for children under two. But, you know, that was way before 75 percent of teens had cell phones. Today, many do school work on tablets or computers and those guidelines seem somewhat out of step.
So the academy today is recommending that parents make a media plan, including turning off gadgets at meals and shutting down completely before bed. But for the littlest kids, those babies under two, they still discourage any screen time at all.
CORNISH: Now when the AAP developed those old recommendations, they were really looking at television. I mean, now even little babies can operate an iPhone.
HENN: Well, that's right. Common Sense Media, a nonprofit based out here in San Francisco, came out with survey this morning which looked at just how common it was for even the youngest children - kids under two - to use mobile devices like iPhones and tablets, and the results were remarkable. Thirty-eight percent of babies and toddlers used touch screens. For kids under eight, the average amount of time children spent on mobile devices has tripled in just the last two years.
So this leaves all kinds of questions. You know, do these screens help kids learn in any real way? And how much time in front of a touch screen is too much?
CORNISH: All right, so how are we getting started?
HENN: Well, with the youngest members of the touch screen generation: babies. Today my colleague Elise Hu is going to explore how touch screens have invaded infants and toddlers lives.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.
Tommy Goszewski, a technician with the U.S. Geological Survey, holds a grass carp taken from a pond at an agency lab in Columbia, Mo., in spring 2013. Scientists have discovered that grass carp have reproduced successfully in the Great Lakes watershed. Because all Asian carp species require similar conditions to reproduce successfully, the discovery suggests it's likely that any of them could spawn there and in many other Great Lakes tributaries, said Duane Chapman, a USGS fisheries biologist. (AP Photo/U.S. Geological Survey)
Tommy Goszewski, a technician with the U.S. Geological Survey, holds a grass carp taken from a pond at an agency lab in Columbia, Mo., in spring 2013. Scientists have discovered that grass carp have reproduced successfully in the Great Lakes watershed. Because all Asian carp species require similar conditions to reproduce successfully, the discovery suggests it's likely that any of them could spawn there and in many other Great Lakes tributaries, said Duane Chapman, a USGS fisheries biologist. (AP Photo/U.S. Geological Survey)
This 2009 photo shows Erinn Beahan, a technician with the U.S. Geological Survey, holding a large grass carp taken from the Missouri River. Scientists have discovered that grass carp reproduced successfully in the Great Lakes watershed. Scientists have discovered that grass carp have reproduced successfully in the Great Lakes watershed. Because all Asian carp species require similar conditions to reproduce successfully, the discovery suggests it's likely that any of them could spawn there and in many other Great Lakes tributaries, said Duane Chapman, a USGS fisheries biologist. (AP Photo/U.S. Geological Survey) (AP Photo/U.S. Geological Survey)
This June 2012 photo provided by the Michigan Department of Natural Resourcesshows a grass carp seized by Michigan officials from a man who was selling the invasive fish illegally. Scientists have discovered that grass carp have reproduced successfully in the Great Lakes watershed. Because all Asian carp species require similar conditions to reproduce successfully, the discovery suggests it's likely that any of them could spawn there and in many other Great Lakes tributaries, said Duane Chapman, a USGS fisheries biologist. (AP Photo/Michigan Department of Natural Resources)
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — Scientists said Monday they have documented for the first time that an Asian carp species has successfully reproduced within the Great Lakes watershed, an ominous development in the struggle to slam the door on the hungry invaders that could threaten native fish.
An analysis of four grass carp captured last year in Ohio's Sandusky River, a tributary of Lake Erie, found they had spent their entire lives there and were not introduced through means such as stocking, according to researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey and Bowling Green State University.
Grass carp are among four species imported from Asia decades ago to control algae and unwanted plants in controlled settings such as sewage treatment lagoons. They escaped into the wild and have spread into the Mississippi and other rivers and lakes across the nation's heartland.
Of greatest concern in the Great Lakes region are bighead and silver carp, prolific breeders that gobble huge amounts of plankton — tiny plants and animals that are vital to aquatic food chains. Scientists say if they gain a foothold in the lakes, they could spread widely and destabilize a fishing industry valued at $7 billion.
Grass carp are less worrisome because they eat larger plants instead of plankton and don't compete with native species, although they could harm valuable wetland vegetation where some fish spawn.
But because all Asian carp species require similar conditions to reproduce successfully, the Sandusky River discovery suggests it's likely that any of them could spawn there and in many other Great Lakes tributaries, said Duane Chapman, a USGS fisheries biologist and member of the research team.
"It's bad news," Chapman said. "It would have been a lot easier to control these fish if they'd been limited in the number of places where they could spawn. This makes our job harder. It doesn't make it impossible, but it makes it harder."
The Obama administration has spent nearly $200 million to shield the lakes, focusing primarily on an electrified barrier and other measures in Chicago-area waterways that offer a pathway from the carp-infested Mississippi River watershed to Lake Michigan. Critics say more is needed and are pressing to physically separate the two systems.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is scheduled to release a report in coming months on a long-term solution.
John Goss, who heads the White House Council on Environmental Quality's Asian carp program, said sterile grass carp have been found in the Great Lakes for years. But the discovery that they can reproduce within the watershed "reinforces why we must continue to execute the aggressive strategy to keep silver and bighead carp out of the Great Lakes that we have been pursuing for the past three and a half years," he said.
A commercial fisherman captured four small grass carp from the Sandusky River in 2012. Chapman and his colleagues determined they were at least a year old and could become spawning adults.
The scientists also examined bones in the fishes' heads called "otoliths" that indicate the chemistry of the waters they've inhabited, and they compared them with otoliths of farmed fish. The analysis confirmed the grass carp were hatched through natural reproduction in the river.
To spawn successfully, Asian carp need rivers of a certain length with currents that keep their eggs drifting long enough to hatch. Researchers are fine-tuning computer models that can determine the likelihood that a particular river is suitable.
A few years ago, scientists believed that perhaps two dozen rivers in the Great Lakes watershed offered good spawning habitat. But the grass carp analysis and other recent findings suggest the number may be considerably higher, Chapman said. He and others are developing a list.
"It also means that many more reservoirs in the United States are at risk of Asian carp establishment," he said.
The Sandusky River has about 15 miles of flowing waters accessible to the grass carp — a shorter stretch than experts previously believed necessary for spawning.
"This is further evidence that we can't underestimate the flexibility that Asian carps have to become acclimated to and even adapt to environments outside their native range," said Reuben Goforth, a Purdue University scientist who has studied the carp but wasn't involved with the USGS project.
___
Follow John Flesher on Twitter at http://twitter.com/JohnFlesher
Prince Bandar Sultan al-Saud, left, shakes hands with Vladimir Putin in Astrakhan, southwestern Russia, on Sept. 4, 2008. Bandar knows, though, that Russia couldn't offer Saudi Arabia the kind of assistance the United States does.
Photo by ALEXEY NIKOLSKY/AFP/Getty Images
Are the Saudis about to call it quits with America? They’re certainly trying to make President Obama think so. Last week Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief, Prince Bandar Sultan al-Saud, told European diplomats that the kingdom was losing trust in Obama’s judgment and may reassess the whole long, tight web of relations between the two governments.
Fred Kaplan is the author of The Insurgents and the Edward R. Murrow press fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Some of Obama’s recent actions rub Saudi interests the wrong way. But this is only to say that the United States and Saudi interests are increasingly diverging.
Prince Bandar—a very shrewd operator who for many years was the Saudi ambassador in Washington—surely understands that if Obama succeeds at some of his new ventures, especially with Iran and Syria, the Saudi Kingdom will suffer a loss of power in the Middle East. He probably also notices, as many analysts have, that the objective basis of the strategic alliance between Riyadh and Washington—America’s dependence on Saudi oil—is eroding.
And so, what’s really going on here is a high-stakes power game. The Saudis are playing a bit of highway chicken, warning Obama that if he continues down this path, the Saudis will go elsewhere. Obama’s task amounts to a diplomatic balancing act: to convince the Saudis that the rift is not as wide as Bandar is suggesting, while at the same time making it clear that our interests in the Middle East are not as wrapped up with the desires or fate of the royal family as they used to be.
To put it another way: The Saudis need our arms more than we need their oil.
This clash of interests has been brewing for some time. In 2011, during the early days of the Arab Spring, the Saudi royals expressed their alarm at Obama’s refusal to rescue Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from his street-demanded ouster (as if any American president could, much less should, have saved Mubarak’s skin). This past summer, the Saudis were once again enraged by Obama’s less-than-full support for the Egyptian generals’ overthrow of the elected president, Mohammed Morsi—and even more flummoxed by his calls for them not to ban Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood party.
Since then, from Riyadh’s vantage, the picture has only worsened. First, Obama called off his much-threatened cruise missile strike against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. Then, perhaps most serious of all, Obama made diplomatic overtures to Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, and is now engaged in formal negotiations to retract economic sanctions in exchange for a drastic cutback in Iran’s nuclear program.
All these actions must be viewed in the context of the Sunni-Shiite conflict that is gripping the entire Middle East and that, if tensions escalate, could plunge the region into war. The Saudi royal family sees itself as the leading Sunni power in this faceoff and the Egyptian regime—first under Mubarak, now under Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi—as its most stalwart ally. The royals see the Iranians as their major rival and the Syrians as the Iranians’ agent in support of Shiite terrorist groups in Lebanon, Gaza, and beyond.
In this framework, President Obama is declining to support Sunni leaders and declining to bomb—when not outright cozying up to—Shiite leaders.
For Riyadh, this amounts to perfidy. The Saudis want to fight the Sunni-Shiite war. They want to see the Muslim Brotherhood wiped out, Assad’s Syria pummeled, and, though they can’t so say openly (in part because the unmentionable Israel, or its interests, would be involved), they would like to see somebody blow up Iran’s nuclear sites and, if possible, its regime, too.
Prince Bandar is upset, in short, because Obama doesn’t want to fight this war. But the problem—and Bandar must know this—isn’t just Obama. No American president—not even the Bushes, who had warm relations with the Saudis—would want to fight this war, because U.S. interests dictate a very different view of the region. We wouldn’t fit on either side of a Sunni-Shiite war; we have allies and adversaries on both. The terrorists of al-Qaida and its affiliates are Sunni (and, by the way, they’ve received much support over the decades from the Saudi-funded Wahhabi madrassas). The regime of Nouri al-Maliki, which George W. Bush helped install in Iraq, is Shiite. The Shiite mullahs of Iran share an interest—which has sat dormant for a while but could be reactivated—in helping keep the Taliban or al-Qaida from retaking power in Afghanistan. And then there’s Israel, which is another matter entirely.
In other words, the chief U.S. interest in the Middle East—and it resonates with U.S. values as well—is to dampen the fever for war. To the extent the Obama administration has threatened or taken military action, it has been for limited aims, which have little to do with the Sunni-Shiite divide.
At times Obama and his aides have made policy in incredibly ungainly ways. But the policies themselves have wind up grounded in U.S. interests. Prince Bandar has discovered something that was masked by the Cold War, when all politics were viewed in light of the U.S.-Soviet standoff and the two superpowers helped suppress the odd eruption of internal chaos: Our interests don’t always coincide with his.
So are the Saudi rulers going to walk away from this decades-long alliance? Not likely. First, they have nowhere else to go. The Saudi army and air force are structured along the lines of the American military, which provides them with tremendous amounts of weaponry, support, and training. The French and Russians could offer some assistance, but not nearly as much—and their political interests and alliances wouldn’t align so neatly with the Saudis’ either.
In fact, Bandar’s stratagem may reflect a growing awareness of Saudi weakness. Figures released earlier this month reveal that the United States has overtaken Saudi Arabia as the world’s biggest supplier of petroleum. To put it another way: The Saudis need our arms more than we need their oil.
Even Bandar’s most stunning signal of disenchantment with Washington—his announcement that the Saudis will not accept a seat on the U.N. Security Council, after years of lobbying for the honor—may be more an acknowledgment of this equation. Had Saudi Arabia joined the U.N.’s highest body, it would have been seen as part of the U.S. voting bloc, and whenever it voted differently from the United States, the difference would be dramatized. Perhaps Bandar, recognizing that there might be frequent differences, would prefer that they not be highlighted.
The storm will probably soon blow over. Meanwhile, it may be a good thing, an acknowledgment of new realities, for Saudi Arabia—for all the countries of the Middle East—to pursue more flexible diplomatic arrangements. It would be good if the region’s leaders neither relied so heavily, nor blamed their own ailments so conspiratorially, on the United States.
It's always good to keep a close eye on what the competition is doing, and we're on the ground this week in San Francisco for the Samsung Developers Conference with Android Central – the official community partner for the event. Our buddies Phil Nickinson and Andrew Martonik will be broadcasting the very best Samsung has to offer this week through the very wonderful Android Central Live! Think back to CrackBerry Live from Orlando earlier this year, and you'll get a sense of what to expect.
Things are about to kick off with the keynote address, so hit up the links below and join Android Central for all the best coverage of the Samsung Developers Conference!
FIRST PERSON | When my mother unexpectedly showed up at my door on a bright California day in September 1993, I never dreamed she'd say: "My doctor thinks I might have breast cancer."
Unable to speak at first, I stared at the petite 64-year-old. Divorced and single since the age of 33, Mom had worked all her life, reared three kids (with no child support), and survived two heart attacks. We had no family history of breast cancer. Life's not fair, but my mother had already endured enough.
She decided to simply go on with life and take her chances. Her denial was a normal reaction to scary medical news. Considering her stubbornness, I soon developed superior persuasion skills. It took days for my mother to agree to a biopsy.
The biopsy confirmed the doctor's suspicions. Based on the findings, the oncologist urged a complete mastectomy. I recall the terrified look on Mom's face as she came to terms with the diagnosis and recommended treatment. However, she recovered quickly, arched an eyebrow, and quipped: "It's not as if I need the darn thing anymore."
Awaiting a mastectomy two days before Christmas is bizarre. It got stranger after Mom was back in her room resting after the procedure. My sister rushed to close the door on a group of carolers who suddenly exploded in the hall, trilling "Joy to the World." No sooner had the door shut than my mother started chuckling. Soon all three of us were laughing until tears streamed. We took Mom home on Christmas morning.
Her sense of humor and her tenacity saw Mom through the rehab and follow-up treatment. As her primary caretaker, I performed everything from incision care to routine chores. Her graceful acceptance of receiving help was the most rewarding part of the whole ordeal.
My mother survived breast cancer. She lived 12 more years before passing away from heart failure.
Less than two months after my mother died in 2005, my "older" twin daughter was diagnosed with breast cancer.
Andrea wasn't quite 30 -- my beautiful, fit, adventurous girl. I crumpled to the floor in emotional pain.
She lived in Michigan. I ached to leave California and speed to my daughter's side. We discussed her scary news, which only compounded the grieving over her grandma's death. We decided that keeping to our familiar routines might be best. She was in a committed relationship, her twin sister was nearby, and she promised to call immediately if her prognosis turned dire.
Andrea underwent a lumpectomy followed by aggressive chemotherapy. She lost her hair, eyebrows, and eyelashes. Although we frequently talked on the phone, she wouldn't send pictures. She thought they'd upset me.
While I was plugging away at my job in an adolescent drug and alcohol treatment program, listening to the problems of young clients, I felt a million miles away Andrea. Though I was grateful she had her sister and supportive friends, I wanted to be near her, too. Mothers need "skin" -- the physical touch of offspring. I also sensed there were problems with the man in Andrea's life. Though I'd never met him, I secretly blamed him for keeping me away. When he answered the phone, his responses to my questions were vague, icy, detached. I thanked him for supporting Andrea, and asked repeatedly if they needed me to be there. He'd say: "No, I've got this. We're fine. It's no big deal." No big deal?
I'd encouraged my daughters to be independent. Being a hands-off mom, unless beckoned, has worked well for my girls and me. There's a balance of closeness and healthy detachment. I didn't see Andrea for three years when she served in the Peace Corps in Ecuador. Though I worried about her daily, I trusted her judgment.
However, about three months after she finished chemo, I moved to Michigan. The time felt right and both daughters were happy about the decision.
Andrea's boyfriend left her shortly before I arrived. A mom just intuitively knows these things.
Still, Andrea flourished and her life got fantastic. She's been cancer-free for eight years. She tested for the BRCA gene mutation, and she doesn't have it. Andrea's more athletic than ever, she loves her career, and she enjoys a fulfilling relationship with a man who truly "gets" her. She says she might marry this one.
Two precious family members who survived breast cancer, plus two different experiences as a co-survivor, made me one deeply grateful and humbled daughter and mother.
Source: