welcome to al jazeera. i'm john siegenthaler. air lifted stranded residents. the death toll stands at 4. the white house is changing course saying it would be open to a u.n. resolution that does not include military action. the word has been a sticking point by secretary of state john kerry and his russian counterpart in geneva. he's spent a third day to

continue negotiations. the u.n. chemical weapons report is expected to be delivered to the u.n. secretary general ban ki-moon in new york this weekend. the state department is confident the report will confirm the use of chemical weapons. although it is unlikely the results will assign blame. that's results at this hour. consider this is up next with antonio mora. i'm john siegenthaler. i'll be with you and the news. at 11:00 eastern time. for the lathest you can check out aljazeera.com. >> we spend more than 60 billion a year to fight terrorism and

protect our home land but there's no way of really proving it's working other than the lack of successful attacks on the country. consider this a dozen years after 9/11 just how effective is our counterterrorism effort? and is it hurting more than helping in some cases? also why is the labor movement at odds with the white house over obamacare and what does it mean as the gop takes aim at the law? and who says women can't drink while pregnant and how challenging is an epidural. what to expect when you're expecting. and the only scientific awards ceremony where winners can be intoed of -- booed off ty an eight-year-old girl. i'm antonio mora. we need to know a lot more about whether our tack advertise against war on terror are really working.

>> al qaeda's top leader ayman al zawahri is calling for more attacks on the u.s. >> in the asame manner we defeated it in the gang warfare in somalia iraq and afghanistan, we should follow it with that war in its own land. >> the day after the anniversary of 9/11. >> zawahri also called for the hits to hurt. >> we should hit by spending it massively on security. >> the u.s. spends billions on homeland security, $50 billion last year and according to the national priorities projects the wars in iraq and afghanistan have cost the u.s. almost $1.5 trillion since 2001. it's hard to measure what this

massive investment has achieved. white house press secretary jake carney acknowledge, that al qaeda has been significantly weakened. >> there is no question over the last couple of years al qaeda core has been diminished not only because of the elimination of osama bin laden. >> the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber didn't act successfully, more attacks in madrid in 2004 which killed 191 people and london in 2005 which killed 52 people. but the recent boston bombing showed how vulnerable the united states is to even an

international attack. courtney ke keeley, al jazeera w york. >> there isn't really anything out there to really evaluate how successful our counterterrorism efforts have been and they say quote, do they programs work? the answer to this question is disturbingly we don't know. your reaction to that? >> reading the same article in the washington post i agree with the basic premise from a plans policy and operation he perspective you always want more research that informs the way to go, informs tactics and strategy. the however to that though, i'd have to say on the perhapses whether it's intelligence military and law enforcement of the u.s. and allies it's been a phenomenal success since 9/11. >> obviously there's been no real successful attack on the american home land since then. you'd think that that would be enough proof right there but it's not really, at least not -- the study doesn't believe that's enough to say we have been

successful? >> no, and i agreed the study did make passing reference to it's awfully hard to prove the negative, okay? but someful things the leadership did point out whether decapitating the leadership, the jury's still out. against the algerians, that's a tactic that didn't turn out to be effectively because it didn't go to the underapplying causes. >> we'll go to that in a minute but i wanted to see how the study ran through the financial costs of war on terror. more than $47 billion last year from the dpaft homeland departmd security, a staggers $658 billion since 2001 for the war in afghanistan. i realize we don't have a lot of information about the line item, specific understanding of what was involved in every single one of -- to add up to those costs. but do you think the money was

well spent? >> well, you make the really good point, antonio, there that the context is somewhat incomplete. if you look at the budget of dhs you can't is all say it was towards terrorism. it was towards cybersecurity and all those things. there must be much more debate and even changes on the budget and policy side of the house. >> the authors also wrote and i quote, "some counterterrorism interventions saw no evidence of reducing terrorism. and terrorism-related harm. and may even increase the likelihood of terrorism." let's go through some of the examples. the drone strikes. that's one that has gotten a lot of press and people have talked about this a lot in recent months. do you think the drone strikes in general are helping or hurting? >> well, again, that's a good, very important topic for debate. because the tactic, tended to

become a strategy overall. but it's important to talk about the particular context. like for example in yemen -- >> you say tactic becoming a strategy. the focus is just on using these machines rather than a more -- a broader strategic philosophy? >> well, when drones first came into the theaters it was typically to go after leadership and operations underway, the policies expanded beyond that. but it really depends where you're talking about. in yemen for example, there's no doubt on the one hand that it's really done a number on the leadership of al qaeda in the asian peninsula, princeton university data shows that hundreds of thousands of young mem are drawn to the fight. that tactic becoming strategy kinetically, but -- >> the blow-back is huge.

osama bin laden has seen as a high point on the war on terror but the authors say that those decapitation strikes on militant leaders can also be an effective and in some cases counterproductive. >> they can but the research shows in less mature terrorist organization he strikes on leadership can be effective. >> stop them in their tracks early. >> exactly. where the leadership cannot regenerate itself effectively and the movement tends to die off. that's a broader point. depends on the context and what group you're talking about. >> it has been seemingly effective, though, when it comes to the big al qaeda. they've had the leaders on the run in pakistan and afghanistan now for so long they don't seem to be able to get their act together. >> absolutely. i mean by way of example, ayman al zawahri, he couldn't get his

anniversary message out until the 12th of september. so that by itself is one indication. if you heard what zawahri said deep within his message he said al qaeda was a message before it was an organization. that's really important to understand those words, that the message, deconstruct the message what it is, death and destruction, no positive answers. there's got to be a counter-narrative to get in front of what zawahri is saying in his decentralized organization. >> i want to hear what zawahri had to say in just a minute but i want to welcome jim walsh, jim is an expert in international security and a fellow at securities -- >> sorry to be a little late. >> no problem, we were talking about ayman al zawahri how he

got his message late. >> yes. >> lest listen to what he had to say. i'll quote what he had to say. he called for more lone wolf attacks on america, and do you think that that is an indication of big al qaeda not being able to put together those big strikes that they were known for? and are really going to focus on smaller-scale terrorism operations? >> i think you're absolutely right. i think most folks if they hear that they're thinking -- they hear diswaw zawahri and it senda tremor down their spine and another message what does that mean? i think you're right to tease that out. first of all al qaeda central if we'll call it that, had to rely on regional, al qaeda yemen al qaeda grahib.

where i'm in water town massachusetts, where there was a general strike. >> whether our counterterrorism efforts have been successful, what do you think? >> would i separate out two different things in the net in general are we safer today than we were yesterday or ten years ago i circulate say? and based just on what we were talking about, i think we can say that al qaeda is a less-potent organization today than it was 12 years ago. and so we've had some success. are we safer, yes, we're safer, because we spent a whole bunch of money and a whole bunch of timer and attention trying to go both on offense and defense to deal with that. but i think that study or that article is spot-on. you know we have no idea of all the things that we've done, we don't have any idea which of

those things actually contributed to that outcome. in other words helped prevent more terrorist attacks as opposed to things that had no effect what sore sofer or -- whatsoever or things that were counterproductive. we have evidence here that shows us what works and doesn't work and not only that, but when it works. some stuff will work at some times and not others. meantime we are spending a lot of cost on stuff for foreign policy and stuff we don't have any evidence we don't know what in particular which tactics were contoned. >> robert one of the things that the article says, the study says is we don't know if some of the things we're doing are then having a boomerang effect, to make airplanes more secure are then causing the terrorists to react and go in a different

direction altogether. are we going to go in a different direction? >> i agree, what is the dearth of information, what do we have to do? the defensive measures as well as the offensive measures, the policy operations have been effective. we still need to -- >> certainly they have been effective in that we haven't been attacked. we have seen terrible attacks in spain and england in the years after 9/11. jim you brought it up a second ago, there has been controversy, the national security agency, spying on folks, terror attacks do you see evidence of that? >> i have seen qulaims and i would love to see the evidence of that. what you have is vague statements that this helped us stop ten attacks or it helped us stop 20 attacks. is it the prism program or

domestic spying where the government is collecting data about my children's telephone calls? is that what stopped a terrorist attack? what stopped the terrorist attack? it seems the me the threshold should be the following, we continual have stopped the attack in the answer of using this instrument. it may also have been the case that we could have stopped the attack with other evidence and other surveillance that we already had in hand. if that's the case then we should not be going you know needlessly and using tactics or instruments that's compromised civil little bit or other important values. so these general claims you know, that's not good enough for me. >> robert, you don't fully agree with jim on this one? >> some i do. some not quite. just a little bit different perspective. like signals intelligence for example and that balance between

civil liberties expect of security, i think the evidence is somewhat skewed in the debate today. it's apart of mosaic in keeping us safe. being able to prove it was the soul source to thwart an operation, it shouldn't be looked at it that way, what does it contribute to the mosaic. i know from my experience it's terrifically important. >> a lot of provoking items in this report, thank you for joining us. i hope you will be back. big pr leaders clark with obama what it could mean. our social director hermella aregawi is following. please join us on twitter and facebook. we'll be right back.

>> the afl-cio passed a resolution this week declaring the implementation of obamacare, quote, highly disruptive, showing the cost would drive up union heacialg plans. the administration which has long enjoyed labor support told the unions, no. late on friday. politicians who oppose obamacare were already smelling new blood and will likely seize on this big blow to big unions. expect to see more commercials like this one. >> teamsters president james hoffa said obamacare would destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that was the backbone of the middle class. >> joining me to discuss all the issues involved are michael

being, of in these times, he joins us from san francisco and mike cannon, from the kato institute. thank you both for being with us tonight. the white house has rejected the request from the afl-cio to change the rules of the obamacare. what the unions are asking is that they want their low wage workers to be able to get, who are part of multiemployer health plans to be able to get subsidies that other low income workers who sign up for obamacare will get. what's the issue there, mike? >> so basically, the issue here is that you have a -- two employers that are competing for workers in low wage transient workforces about. the way a lot of construction work works is that workers are employed for three or four weeks as long as the construction work goes on and then they may be unemployed for some period.

if the worker works for two weeks and is unemployed for two weeks, the plan covers their hearing for those weeks that they are unemployed. >> but michael there are subsidies for those plans right? >> let me explain what's happened here is most cruk contractors is less than 50 employees in this situation. and under obamacare, employers aren't -- aren't required to provide health care for workers with less than 50 -- for companies that have less than 50 employees that are in construction contracting don't have to provide any health care. and their workers that work for them can now get subsidies that are quite large under obamacare. so this creates a competitive disadvantage for unionized workers that work with contractors with less than 50 employees, that the employers do have to provide some form of health care coverage. what yoings are saying that --

unions are scaig that employers that do not provide health care shouldn't have an advantage over those that do. >> michael is that fair? >> fair is a difficult one to tease out here. i think the main take away from this development this clash between the white house and the afl-cio is this law remains far more vulnerable than supporters would ghit, even though we are only weeks from signing up for health care exchanges, now you have a union resolution that was approved this week at the afl-cio that began by saying either make these changes that we want or we will support repeal. it was watered down, to the point where it just said please make these changes we want, we feel very strongly about it. now the white house has said to the afl-cio no, we're not going

to make the changes you want. that is going to strengthen the hand for the people in the afl-cio and broaden the bipartisan coalition of people who don't want this law. >> the white house lobbied hard to weaken that resolution. >> president obama had a confidence with afl-cio president rimple richard trumka. especially a organization like kato, while there are many-o he that hurt bowmg, at the end of the day, cps organized labor is going to start calling for the repeal of obamacare in this situation. while it mate hurt unions, unions have been going on with democratic presidents who have hurt them for decades. >> hold on for a second, i want to show something. there is no doubt that this is going to hurt unions because the benefits are a big draw and that

will you know hurt their power to attract members. and this is what terry o'sullivan said last week at the big afl-cio convention. >> if the affordable care act isn't fixed and it destroyed the health and welfare funds that we have all fought for and stand for i believe it needs to be repealed. we don't want it repealed, we want it fixed fixed fixed. >> that addresses what you are discussing, they want it fixed but that doesn't seem to be happening. michael you think we will hear more calls for repeal from the unions? >> well, i think so. i mean you've heard it for several months now. and they're really serious about this. because as you say it threatens their existence. if the workers aren't getting health benefits from the union more reasons they don't need the union anymore and might not sign

up for the union. they see this as an exingsial el threat. >> this is threatening jobs and the hours people have in a job because employers do not have to provide health insurance for are workers who work less than 30 hours a week. some employers are trying to cut people back and not give people 30 hours, will this hurt workers? >> i think it will hurt workers, we're seeing companies cut workers down below 30 hours so they don't have to qualify for health insurance. i think many employers are upset with um obamacare. it is an imperfect system.

it hurts in multiemployer pension plans, hurts workers where they're having their hours cut under 30 hours a week and hurts employers who are taxed on so-called cadillac health care plans. verizon was asking workers to pay more for their health care, unionized workers more for their health care because they claimed obamacare would make it more expensive. sure obamacare will help many individuals get health care through the individual market, it will help people with preexisting conditions. obamacare is a very mixed bag, i think what it says is that obamacare will not fix it that obamacare is the result of compromises that at the end of the day some of those compromises will hurt some of those who supported it which are

unions. >> there is a kaiser family foundation study a few months ago that said, a major of americans didn't even know that it had been signed into law and the administration has admitted it hasn't done a good job of explaining this but they have sent people all over the country to try to do it, trying to get nfl teams to support them and bill clinton has been hired as the explainer in chief and he's been out there lobbying for this. let's listen to him. >> and i'm going to argue, as best i can, that we'll all be a lot better off, whether we supported or opposed the health care reform law whether we like it or don't we'd all be better off to work together to identify the problems and to fix them. >> michael, we're only a couple of weeks ago from the beginnings of this. and we've got bill clinton out there still talking about having to fix this. what do you think is going to happen? >> well, it's hard to make

predictions, especially about the future. but the whole enterprise here hinges on healthy people signing up for health insurance in obamacare health exchanges. it is because the law increases premiums on the healthy that it's able to reduce premiums for the sick and that's supposed to help people with preexisting conditions. i think the law is going to make it much harder for sick people to obtain the care they need. we can talk about why that is but if that can happen under this law it can help the sick it's got to be because they have enough healthy people enroll in premiums higher than they were before and that's a very difficult thing to do particularly when more than half the [simultaneous speech] >> if i may finish mike. if i may finish. >> you know that's not true. >> go ahead michael. >> it's true mike and you're uninformed if you don't know that's true you don't know what

you're talking about. >> i'm not uninformed about this, i have covered this for four and a half years. >> i haven't interrupted you once. >> all right. >> what this law does is increases premiums on the healthy in order to reduce them on the sick and on the low end of the spectrum, sliding scales disappear around 45,000 or 96,000 for the a family of four. some people will see their premiums out of pocket cost go down as a result of those subsidies but the majority of the healthy people and those are the people you are concerned about the most will end up paying more under this law than they would have beforehand. and you're talking about healthy people who have rejected health care under current ratings and hope they will still sign up for this insurance. a lot of supporters know if healthy people don't enroll this whole thing collapses.

that's the challenge they face. >> i want to bring up disparities, the kaiser family foundation study went into depth how much it will cost people and how much the insurers will charge, for instance in vermont a low income 25-year-old's tax credit would be enough to cover the premium of the cheapest plan but oregon the person of the same income would spend $116 a month. and all these quirks in there you will find older people who are not as healthy and need more health care paying more than the young for some plans. there seems like there's a lot to be dealt with. >> there is a lot to be dealt with but what michael said was disingenuous. we saw a report that individual health care would cost 50% less in the individual market. this is a very good deal for some. i don't think this is a very good deal for workers covered by

union health care workers but individuals will be paying dramatically less. too many right wing forces especially the antiunion workers from the fund where michael works, not good for workers in union. >> michael last word. >> mike as a recorder i would expect fewer add homonym attacks from you. >> i haven't given you a single add homonym attack. you know where your bread is buttered. >> when president barack obama said on the -- when president obama said that on the television, he is not helping the law by giving that misleading impression. premiums will go down for some people but up for many people in the individual market. >> three years later clearly the debate is going to continue and heat up in the next few weeks.

mike elk, michael cannon, appreciate you visiting us. is the debate over pregnancy wrong? is alcohol necessarily wrong but you might want to stay away from gardening? next.

>> consider this, pregnancy involves a long list of dos and don'ts, that have many women walking on egg shells for the nine months. what's the nearly 4 million american women having babies every year, doing to have a healthy pregnancy and what shouldn't they do? emily oster is the author of expecting better, why the conventional pregnancy wisdom is wrong and what you really need to know. and joining us from washington, d.c, ask christina brockett, author of the missing pages of the parent handbook. thank you for being with us tonight. emily want to start with you, and i want to bring up something that critics brought up, your book challenges conventional

wisdom. you're not an m.d, why does that give you a special advantage in a way to give people advice what they should be doing and not doing during pregnancy? >> i got pregnant and i realized there are a lot of decisions to be made in pregnancy and when i started trying to understand those decisions better and to go to the source of the decisions i found that a lot of the tools i was using were exactly the tools i use in my job. so statistical analysis, thinking what's good information, what's not good information, thinking about how to structure a decision, when i wrote the book the book is about data of pregnancy, the numbers behind pregnancy. it's kind of a different way to look at pregnancy than you would get from an obstetrician. but seeing the numbers was both empowering and in some ways really relaxing. >> christina you think it's a good thing that emily approached this from the standpoint of an

economist crunching numbers? >> absolutely i do. i have profound respect for what she's put together because when you become pregnant and especially with your first child there's a lot of contradictory information out there. and it's often difficult to navigate. especially in the age of the web and everything that's available, readily available, to women everywhere. to have that consolidated in one place, and analyzed and put together speaks to my analytical heart as well, so i think it's a great way to present the information. >> and emily you said that the vagueness of that information you got is what led you to write this. the most controversial thing you've written is you think it's okay to drink a glass of wine or so a day in the second trimester. what are you pacing those conclusions on? >> wondering about the question

of light drinking, drinking to excess is problematic, i or someone else not argue that is a good idea, when i looked at the question of light drinking, i actually found there is a number of large studies of european women who focus on women who are never binge drinking, every day never more than one small drink. when you look add those women what you see is their children have the same outcomes, same i.q. levels as the people who abstain. you have many data who look at the data who decide having an occasional glass of wine is okay and i think the data would support that choice. >> christina what is your reaction to that? there has been so much told to women in the past decades about not drinking while pregnant. >> i think that topic is a tough one and i think it goes back to something emily actually put in her book. you've got to take the

information and you've got to analyze it with your own personal value system and make an educated decision from that. for me personally my grandmother actually was a court appointed advocate for a child with fetal alcohol effect. and so i saw firsthand the impact that alcohol had on that young man, and now he's a grown adult. and for me, that choice became fairly simple. and i figured, you know, i really, for one drink or a beer here or there, i didn't want to risk it. but again that's my personal decision. and i think you can't make a global decision for anybody. i think it's got to be unique to any woman as they're carrying their child and frank reply every pregnancy because every pregnancy is different. >> emily the fetal alcohol disorders study group recently

likened alcohol to thalidomide and there may be a dosage below which that'l thalidomide doesn'e repliesing limbs, given the risk there is of fetal alcohol syndrome, the cdc still recognizes,. >> i think the comparison to thalidomide wasn't helpful. but as christina was saying there is value here in looking at the data and i think the truth is that the data draws a very strong distinction between having an occasional small glass of wine and drinking significantly more than that. and i 30 that you know different women will look at that data and

decide differently on this. but i think that we really do need to think about the data and think about what it's telling us and i think it's not telling us that if you have a small glass of wine every once in a while that that's going to cause problems. >> let's look at the other things you address, amongst the foods you say are okay to school while pregnant caffeinated beverages, sushi, within moderation, one of the things women have been warned about is the mercury levels of fish and also caffeine. >> nonmercury laiden sushi as long as you get it from a reputable location, no being short shore fish no shark, which hopefully people are not eating in sushi, moderation, up to 200 milligrams is fine. i actually argue that probably a bit more than that is also okay. although again when you get into

six, eight cups of coffee a day there does seem to be increased risk of miscarriage and that's something we want to avoid. >> there are tons of food you need to avoid, raw milk dairy, a lot of things you can't eat, i often feel there are a lot of things you can't eat or should eat. >> i can't eat cheetos, cheetos are good right? hope to understand a little bit restrictions, raw milk cheese is definitely something you wish to avoid, frequently implicated in lislisteria contamination.

nothing not all of this list needs to be on it. >> give pregnant women pause, hair dyeing, kiddy litter boxes but gardening preents danger. that seems to go against conventional wisdom. what's wrong with gardening? >> turns out what you thought was wrong with your cat litter is are wrong with your garden. your cat is probably not giving you that, there is kind of no evidence that you're getting it from your cat litter but processional because other cats poop in your garden, gardening is more risk 80 or more associated with -- risky or more associated to that. >> christina how do you react to all of those recommendations? >> well smoking, absolutely absolutely not. as far as the kitty litter box i think the only thing i would say

there is you know, some people have cats that are both indoor and outdoor cats. i know that i actually did, when i was pregnant. and that would be one of the reasons why i didn't go near the litter box. because if it is outside, there are greater chances that it's going to contract toxoplasmosis and increasing the risk to pregnancy. as far as the lunch meat recommendations again i think it becomes a very personalized decision for every woman. i actually craved lunch meat while i was pregnant and my husband laughed at me. but you know, again, it's a very personalized thing. i think there are certain things like smoking where you can draw the hard and fast rules and i think the other things again you've got to evaluate based on your own personal circumstance.

>> i know you believe strongly the communication between rng patients and medical doctors, bed rest for preterm labor something not recommended in general many, many years ago but many doctors aring recommending it and i know epesiotomies and epidurals are recommended in the book. i hope mothers to be learned a lot tonight and pick up your book. thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> coming up is it possible to run on water and can insects use the milky way to find direction? the being implications of silly science next.

>> today's data dive is the serious study of seemingly silly science. dung beetles can find their way home using the milky way. somebody actually studying it and the researchers use recently won an ignoble prize, the ignobles honor real research that, quote, cannot or should not be reproduced. this year's medical prize went to a team that looked at the survival of mice that received heart transplants. mice that listened to opera or mozart lived longer than the new world music of enya. i'm sure she is not happy. the pond would have to be on the

moon with weaker gravity. if you wonder who funds this stuff it was italy's ministry of health and its space agency. a study that is beauty in the eye of the beer holder, the more people drink the more attractive they think they are. did they need a study to figure that out? anybody who was around drinkers could have told you that. the tongue in cheek prize, for the president of bellarusse. ,. the study for how long a cow is laying down and how long it takes to get up. coming up, nothing to do with the redskins play on the field, coming up. ç]

>> many native americans consider the word red skin offensive. in the past the oneida indian nation have campaigned to have the washington redskins change their name. now they put out this radio ad.

>> we do not deserve to be called redskins, we deserve to be called americans. >> they have planned a protest at the green bay packers game. host of serius xm. >> good to be here. >> roger goodell hasn't wanted to take sides really been quiet about it. in the past week, he said this: >> if we are offending one person we need to listen and make sure we do things to address that. >> greg: goodell is changing his tune? >> when ten members of congress sent a letter to the envelope

likening to the n word, he said i see this as highly respectful, that's the words he used, highly respectful, that's a huge shift from there, if one person is offended we need to listen, i think the roots of it have to do with the falling out of roger goodell and washington team owner dan snyder. he went around with someone who called himself a native american chief and saying he wasn't offended at all, and within his family, they called each other red skin as a member of endearment, how you doing redskin, i mean it was the biggest sham you could possibly imagine and roger goodell is smarting is as a result of that. if there's one thing roger

gooddell knows, gently placing dan snier schneider beneath the. >> there is national study that shows four out of five americans think the team shouldn't change their names. 11% opposed, 79% for, who think it should be changed. 8% weren't sure, 2% didn't answer. does schneider think he doesn't have to change the name because he's got the support from the fan and he can confidentably ignore the minority that is offend it? >> i will not crawl inside the mind of dan schneider, i assume that is a very dark dank place. but i will say this, we live in a country that is only .8% native american. in the d.c. area it is only 0.6 per. this is not a country that does right by native american voices

so when i look at polls like that, that to me only says people in this country are either deeply ignorant or deeply in denial about the history of what's happened to native americans in this country. 500 years ago it was 100%. if the percentage were greater, on par with latinos or african americans, there would not be a team of redskins, they would not exist. if your team name only exists because there was a genocide you might want to think about getting a new team name. >> important point. we've got some social media reaction, social media producer hermella aregawi for that. >> i don't understand they have been the washington redskins since 1937. why now is their name an issue? >> okay first response, that would be like somebody saying in

1955, i don't understand, there's been jim crow for 80 years, why are they raising an issue now? you can't put a time stamp on it. on the issue of history, there have been protests of native americans back to the movement 40 years ago. there were sit ins by vern bellancourt the last time the washington redskins were there. the only reason there is more of a national uproar is this is the first time the washington football team has been relevant in about 20 years. this name has been saved from national controversy because of the team's mediocrity largely because of dan schneider. this is why i want the washington football team to go to the super bowl, not only because it would be great for the city i live in but i would like dan schneider equilibrium

for two weeks, why in fact is your team named after what in the dictionary is described as a slur. >> he said we will never change the name of the team as a lifelong redskins fan i think the redskins fan understand the great tradition and what is all about and what it means. we will never change the team, that simple, never. even with pressure from congress he doesn't seem to care. >> let's talk about this for a second, he talks about the tradition and that is the argument that was given. the washington redskins was the last team to integrate, george marshall was an arch segregationist, he had a great affinity for minstrelsy, for black face, white people dressing up in black face for

entertainment. it always ends with fight for old dc, he had the lyrics fight for old dixie, and he had it changed to fight for old dc. fight for old dixie, they would play dixie on the field during the 1950s and 60s during the height of the civil rights movement. if that's the history that dan snierschneider wants to tan witn let's have it. >> college football team sports illustrated is looking at how far the program went to become one of the best teams in football, the allegations are that oklahoma state made payment and gave no show to players, recreational drug use and sex

was used to recruit players. how often are we going to see this, in college players? we just went there some like there in university of florida. what is the ncaa going to do? >> i don't know what the ncaa is going to do but the most important part of the story is the way the collective media ya ansports fans have responded. that's something very interesting to analyze. we have reached a point of such profound cynicism, in a context of a college football world where the ncaa just signed a $6 billion contract with espn for college playoff. >> but the fact that everybody is reacting with a shrug is unbelievable. >> that's the story. >> barry bonds conviction, has

been upheld by an appeals court but his whole penalty if it stands, he's appealing it further, two years of probation, 200 hours of community service monitoring by home confinement for a month. i got literally 15 seconds. is there any hope for any of these sports, a-rod is still playing although he has been charged with doing same thing and you make millions of dollars? >> yet john kerry can have botox and barry is put behind bars. this may have a discussion for another time antonio. >> we have to talk about that some other day. we really appreciate you taking time. the show may be over but the conversation continues on the website, aljazeera.com/consider this. or twitter aj consider this. we'll see you next time.

>> good evening everyone, welcome to al jazeera. i'm john siegenthaler in new york. here are the top stories. removing the threat of military action. that is the president's new plan tonight for a u.n. resolution on syria. plus: >> i believe that the report will be an overwhelming, overwhelming report. that the chemical weapons was used. >> his statements were apparently off the record but the u.n. secretary general said he didn't know the cameras were still on. and thousands forced from their homes. in colorado, water topping dams, the search for 80 missing