. welcome to al jazeera america. i'm john, and here are the top stories - families of fallen drops will receive financial benefits. they have been cut by the shutdown. president obama signed the measure to restore payments hours after it was approved in the senate. the pentagon pays out there 100,000 within three days of a service member's death. 29 members of the military died since the shutdown. >> no deal, republican leaders met with president obama talking about the proposal to raise the debt ceiling. both sides are optimistic, but they were unable to reach an agreement on the proposal.

>> news about a short-term debt ceiling sent the stock markets soaring. the dow jones jumping 323, a large gain. there was a reaction in january when congress agreed to a deal avoiding a first call cliff. the market jumped that day. >> that's the news this hour, more news later at 11 eastern. consider this is up next. remember, you can get your latest news on the website. the white house and

congressional republicans finally meet over a new deal to avoid defaulting on america's debt obligations. consider this - are the republicans caving or are the democrats backing themselves into a corner? our wars in the mideast and use of drones to fight terror caused a lot of anger across the region. a new book about special forces asks how the u.s. can fight extremists without creating more. parents that push to give kids every advantage - are they - by teaching them to be cutthroat. >> i'm antonio mora, welcome to consider this. >> wall street was soring after mention of a deal. president obama and the republicans emerged from the white house meeting saying progress was made. as we report, they hit a big sticking point. >> no deal yet, but both sides agreed to talk.

>> we'll have more discussion, and come back to have more discussion. the president said he would consult with the administration folks, and hopefully we can see a way forward after that. >> the proposal put forth by house republicans would extend the debt ceiling through 22 november. budget negotiators for longer term reduction, and discussion on how to ending the shutdown would pursue. the obama administration wants a debt ceiling deal to include reopening the government. something the republicans have on their radar. >> opening the government is a negotiation that will happen tonight and in the hours ahead. we hope to have it opened by monday morning. >> speaker boehner's proposal was laid out at the white house on thursday with president obama and 20 republican leaders. the republicans left by the side door, without giving remarks, but clarified the talks were positive. the white house signalled the

talks were welcome. >> the president is happy that cooler heads seem to be prevailing in the house. that there seems to be a recognition that default is not an option. >> optimism about a deal sent stocks soring with major averages rallying by 2% across the board, second-best gains this year. >> joining me to discuss what happens next in the washington brinksmanship is mark mckinnon. he advised hundreds of campaigns and candidates, including george w. bush, and senator john mccain, and is the founder of no labels, a group of democrats, republicans and independence trying to promote problem-solving. and from nancy pelosi, chair of the california democratic women's caucus, here in washington d.c. thank you both for being with us. >> doesn't this standoff put the president in a difficult position. this is what he said in a press

conference this week. >> to actually permit the fault, according to ceos would be - i'm quoting here - insane, catastrophic, chaos - these are the more polite words. >> so he was talking about the sky falling and now the republicans have put forth an offer to end the sky from falling. doesn't the president have to take it? >> what the president has to do is listen to the american people, and that's what he's doing. we believe that the budget is a statement of our national values, and that should be sat down and negotiated in due course. we believe that the government should reopen for everyone. and that the government should pay its bills. that's the line that the president is taking. that's what we elected him to do and what he must do this week. >> with respect to the debt ceiling, he spoke about defaulting on our obligations. if the republicans put forth a deal saying we'll extend this

for a few weeks, no conditions - didn't he back himself into a corner saying this would be catastrophic, and this deal saves him from that kat as trophy. >> several deals would save us. the best would be to reopen government, pay our bills and sit down and budget conference and negotiate from there. absolutely we have two obligations in the united states. we have to serve the people, and we have to pay our bills, and so for the republicans to say they'll serve half of those obligations, doesn't make sense to the american people. we talked about honouring our veterans, 27% of the federal workforce are veterans, we need to put them back to work. why should they be kept at home in furloughed when they could be working in exchange for the republicans doing what they are supposed to do, which is pay our bills. >> an important topic, we dealt with that armly last night. -- amply last night.

we are focussing on the debt, which everyone is talking about is catastrophic. the problem is not whether president obama backed into a corner, the republicans have to go through the deal, and a lot of the tea party members, the faction is not happy - some promising not to vote for any raising of the debt ceiling. they'll have to cut a deal where a lot of people will not be happy. >> no deal will make everyone happy. while the tea party is a force, they are a faction. there's a lot of good news today and in the last couple of days. first of all, that the republicans have acknowledged expressly that they will not allow a default. john boehner is going to make sure that happens under any circumstances, it's good news for the market and the republicans and the republicans. it's commonsense. no labels point of view has been to get everyone in the room and put everything on the table. we had 50 members of our

problem-solving coalition talking about the importance of getting everyone in the room. we see the results of that. when everyone draws lines in the sand and says we are not going to talk, that's where we have the shut down and breakdown. not quickly, but it looks like at the at least a fault will be diverted. whether that's tied to a deposit shutdown, we'll see what happens. there's progress, and progress is being made. >> there's factions with the democrats. a short-term deal had been floated by the administration before. here is gene spirling the national director at a political event on monday. >> what the president has said is that if we can get by the - this threatening of default. if the debt limit is extended, the president has shown time and again that he's willing to negotiate on the budget. >> he added that a longer term

deal is better, but then some democrats were upset with what he had floated, and harry reed was upset about it. reed said no negotiating unless the government shutdown ended. christine, is that going to be - that is apparently what has been talked about tonight, is the obama administration is going to insist on putting the government shutdown on the table before a deal is done. >> well the american people are demanding an end to the shutdown. let's take it back to where it begins. the power rests in the american people. they said, "end the shutdown", the vast majority of people want the government to reopen. they don't understand why you can't do two things at once. you can have group like marks and plenty of groups talking about the budget, our values, how to go forward in the long term. in the short term you need to do that in the context of people being at work, doing the people's business.

short-term we'd like to see them reopen the government, pay the bills. in the long term we'd have the broader conversation, which as was pointed out the president has tried many, many times, and there seems to be more of an appetite this time around. >> talking about the american people, this is hurting everyone, especially congressional republicans. there's no question that american people's faith in government has dropped drastically. consumer confidence is down. the approval of republicans and congress is low. an associated press poll shows that president obama's handling of this is down around 37%. a pox on both their houses here, according to the american people. >> as there should be. you know, i think that strategically, actually, i'll agree that republicans are better off both with a debt ceiling deal that includes alleviating the government shutdown.

i think the reality is that if we are going to get budgetary considerations that the republicans like, and by the way there's a number that the republicans and democrats agree on, like means testing, medicare, chain cpi and long-term entitlement reform and bipartisan tax reform, we are likely to work that out with breathing space. i've been keeping the hammer down on the lockdown not strategically, it's not good for republican perception. it makes better sense to agree on an extension of the debt ceiling, and tie it to the budget - proceeding on the budget. >> i now you are focused on the budget and supporting senator ryan. he said, "the president didn't say yes or no... :

>> is obamacare going go away, and will the discussion be more focus the on the budget concerns that paul ryan's been focused on. >> the three things that i ticked off were paul ryan's ideas. the good news about the ryan plan and proposal is the absence of discussion about defunding obamacare. i think almost everybody, with the exception of a senator from texas realises what a huge mistake that was, and so i think we are much better ground putting that behind us, changing the conversation to things that can be done and likely will be done. >> except for obamacare, you are putting obamacare on the table if you are talking about means testing. we tried that in 2009 in the original debate and said do medicare for all, means test everybody and cover everybody - that went off the table. now only the republican half of

that barr gain is presented under the paul ryan plan. as for social security, everyone planned to saving that and not getting medicare in 2012. you need two separate tables of discussion - one about the budget, taxes and subsidies, and the other is about earned benefits and the american safety net which the american people said they didn't want cut. >> let's assume there is a deal, and there's an extension of the debt ceiling, and there's an ending of the government shutdown. negotiations will start on what? what would be acceptable to the democrats. what could they give? >> i think that there's two things. first of all, a lot of people are interested in structural tax reform. there was a debate that's been had since 2005 on ending subsidies to already profitable oil companies, and reinvesting that in clean energy. we are talking about renewing investments and education, a big

effort to grow the economy. it's investing in jobs. there's a lot. the democrats can put a lot on the table in terms of growing the economy from the middle class out. it's a separate conversation than what to do about social security. where the options range from lifting the cap to doing the suggestions that paul ryan has. there's a lot going on there, but i think that there is a progressive message on saving the safety net lost in all this, and certainly the democratic voters are not willing to sacrifice earned benefits for the sake of reopening the government or funding a tax cut. they are not going to do that. >> we'll see if representatives are ready to touch the third rail of politics. i want to go to a texas senator, and charles crouthammer, who had this to say on a radio show:

>> again, talking about ted cruz. charles krauthammer said he led a suicide caucus. what do the tea party do now? >> well, i think they lost a lot of equity lining up behind ted cruz without on end strategy to the game. so, you know, as j kearney said, cooler heads are prevailing. more sensible republicans - john mccain said the sort of things that republicans need to hear. that's good. that's good in the long term. i think we wasted a lot of time in a debate and discussion that there was - that was not productive, strategically smart and wasted time and created more of a crisis than we had to have.

>> if the tea party poses a deal, will democrats cross the aisle and vote with the majority republicans. >> the majority of american people and republicans and democrats in congress want to vote for a clean funding bill that will reopen the government, and that will pay debts to move on to a budget conference. with the republicans that said they support ending the shutdown. they should step up and demand a vote. the longer they are tied to the hotter heads, the longer they are tied to senator cruz, the longer they are tied to the tea party, the worst off america and the constituents are. sooner or later they'll bow to political pressures that mark is talking about. i hope it's sooner. >> mark is focussing on no labels bringing republicans and democrats together, trying to get them working together.

republican congressman spoke at a no labels event at dc. >> something that is missing in this town is trust. the citizens don't trust the government, republicans don't trust the democrats. house doesn't trust the senate. trust a collapsing. the american people sent us here to improve their lives, not score political points. >> mark, are you optimistic because he is certainly right - the collapse of trust is very discouraging. >> well, you know, despite and in part because of what has been happening in washington. there's encouraging things going on with organizations like no labels, reflecting what is going on outside of washington, a demand that elected representatives solve the problems before us. the good news is behind expectations. we hoped we'd get to 50 members, 50 members of congress, half

democrats and half republicans. we have 86. we wanted to meet monthly, they are meeting weekly. in the last month they wrote and filed 17 different pieces of legislation. they are in the room, working together. we have a broad spectrum, we have move-on progressors, and tea party members. these are people committed to problem-solving and they are hearing the voices outside of dc and demanding change. there is hope, and there is encouragement with some things that are happening beneath the radar stream. >> for the sake of the country and eliminating the system we've had in recent years, i wish you the best. thank you for being on the show. >> next - the role of special forces in the war on terror. how does america fight enemies without using tactics that end up creating more experience. our social editor is fielding your questions, she'll bring them to us. join our conversation on

twitter, facebook and twitter plus.

can the u.s. win its war on terror without creating new enemies willing to die for groups like al qaeda - drone strikes killed civilians in the wars in iraq and afghanistan, deploying american force, and thousands of american deaths. the american way of war may be drifting from drones and armies to small teams of special operators, navy seals, army rangers, special forces and others. special operation teams took the lead in two counterterror strikes, the capture of abu anas al liby in libya, and an attempt to grab an al-shabab planner in somalia. president obama underlined the shift in a news conference on tuesday. >> there's a difference between us going after terrorists who are plotting directly to damage the united states, and us being involved in wars. where you have active plots and

active networks, we are going to go after them. >> for more, i'm joined by washington d.c. by linda robinson, a senior policy at the nonprofit, non-part san rand corporation, and is the author of "one hundred victories: special ops and the future of american warfare." thank you for joining us. your book title comes from a quote from a chinese general who wrote: >> what does that comment from an ancient chinese general have to do with modern warfare as it's carried out by highly trained, elite troops? >> thank you, i'm happy to be here. that quote is what i spent the last two years researching. winning without fighting - and fighting means by u.s. forces. the special operations community will have three things in the

tool kit - droens, raids and partner forces. it's the third, partnering with other forces from other countries, so that they will be the ones pulling the triggers, they'll be the ones taking the lead in securing their own countries. that is the message of that title. >> you saw this in action. your book covered some of the bloodiest years of the war in afghanistan. you were in in 2006 and 2007. you've been in and out of that country, and you saw special operators at works, and you saw a change in the approach to fighting the war over the time you were there with them by doing that, by working with the locals. >> yes, exactly, and i spent many years in iraq. so i have seen the big heavy wars, very much focused on direct actions and combat action. and what happened over the last two years is the special operations forces devoted more of their troops to this

initiative called village stability operations. as a component, raising civil is defenders - locals volunteering to defend their own village. that became their largest initiative since vietnam that really turned around the security in some critical parts of the country - didn't work everywhere, but in key parts of the insurgent belt the villages came together and with the help of the special operations forces began taking their districts and vielages back from the taliban. >> then there's a concern, as we saw last month, three special ops troops killed during a training mission in afghanistan. they are the latest americans to be shot by insider attacks by an afghan in an army uniform. how can the troops be trained in afghanistan, iraq and other places, knowing some might be waiting for a chance to kill them? >> there's a risk whenever you put boots on the ground, whether

in this advisory mentoring capacity or whether they are out there doing combat. i lived with these special operations teams and the mud compounds, colots in the villages. they had low incidence of insider threat. they got to know the people they were with. in one case - and there's a picture in the book - of a special operations captain with his four villageder local police, and they thought of him as their son. there was a very close relationship. i saw this time and time again. they bond with the locals. and serves as their protection. i have to say they go back to the same places. they learn the culture, the language. that is how 12 guys can go out there, live in a village with no one else around forum to a year, and they managed to stay safe. >> you suggested that t laurence

of lawrence of arabia fame had it right when he offered advice to british officers serving with arab gurr illas, he said: bsh >> do you think the special ops troops in afghanistan would agree with that? >> i love the quote and i saw it time and time again - where they'd sit in the back of the room, they wouldn't say anything, they'd advise the afghani partner before or after the meeting, and they didn't try to take the lead and positioned themselves as the helper or supporter. often the afghans, yemenies and somalis know the country better than the americans do, and it's a matter of helping them. that skill set was really recaptured after a decade of a

lot of these special operators being focused on the kill and capture missions. it was amazing to see how they could go out in the villages and learn to take the role. powerful, but not the call of duty, sexy jump out of the helicopters. some grumble. they'd rather be out shooting. senior leaders understand this over the long term will be a sustainable solution. how many times have we tape out the number three al qaeda leader, only to have him replaced. i think they are starting to understand this is the way of the future - not that there won't be occasions where droens are needed and raids are needed, but that is hopefully going to be the dire and imminent cases of threat, and this is really the way of the future. >> we saw the raids last weekend. libya and somalia aimed at capturing key players and planners. capture has its own issue, john

bellenger, state department legal advisor told the "washington times. ". >> the question is how serious are the legal problems, how do you balance those legal problems against the need to capture the planners who may have important intelligence we need to stop attacks possibly against the american homeland. >> that's true, and the best case is when the government - the host country government accepts and endorses the need for that type of use of force, unilateral or ideally partnered. it happens in the case of somalia, not libya. there was a u.s. indictment. a fellow was involved in the 1998 embassy bombings in africa, the u.s. embassy. any time you go into a country

unilaterally without the endorsement of that country, you'll have diplomatic and political blow back. it is never ideal and it must be carefully weighed that the u.s. vital national interests require it. >> you talk about drone strikes, they are a critical matter. the number has been dropping. the u.s. launched 22 this year compared to the year before. the admission has right fully spoken about how the drone strikes helped to decimate the al-qaeda leadership. why, then, move away from that? or do you think they won't move away fully, that it will remain one tactic, not the main tactic. it will remain in the tool kit. the move is on to restrict their use to the clear cases of a dire and imminent threat to u.s. interests. the thing you get out of a raid is that you don't get out of a

drone attack is you have the ability to go in and scoop up the capture the prisoner, entergait them, get intelligence that way, scoop up the laptop computers and anything with them so that it provides additional intelligence on that group, and importantly, you have the chance to try them in a court of law, u.s. or another venue. that, i think, sends the right message ultimately that we are after rule-based solution, and not use of force. that, i think, contrasts with the terrorist groups that the u.s. and allies are trying to defeat. it's preferable. in the case of raids, as we saw in somalia, they don't always work. it was a tactical failure in this case. in that case it was not compounded by calling in airstrikes, killing a lunch of civilians. they would have had a strategic blunder on their hands, and on the anniversary, the 20th

anniversary of black hawk down. that would have been an unfortunate scenario. >> this will be an important topic in the months to come as the u.s. and hamid karzai, the president of afghanistan try to figure out what the role in afghanistan for the united states forces will continue to be in the future. thank you very much linda robinson for joining us again. your book "one hundred victories: special ops and the future of american warfare." thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> coming up - kindergarten has become a cutthroat course for the classroom - not for kids, for parents. are grown-ups teaching kids the wrong lesson by helping them too much?

>> children model behaviour on parents. ethical parenting should be important. when it comes to your child's best interest the question though is whether that's possible. joining us here on set in new york is new york magazine contributing editor lisa miller, who wrote the article ethical parenting, and dr harold koplewicz, a child and adolescent psychologist, head of child mind institute. >> in your article a great

quote, lisa. you said: . >> yes >> do you see thinks that bad these days? >> it's not necessarily bad, it's what parents do. their job is it to protect their children and make sure their children are safe and healthy, and grow up into adulthood and be independent, self-sufficient kids. unfortunately that means that other kids come second. it's always true. >> but you bring up extreme examples. >> yes. so when you are in a rat race and things feel competitive or you yourself are anxious about the future, you start to do things that you think are giving your kids a leg up, that are actually not modelling ethical behaviour. >> the first line in lisa's article, is parenthood like war is a state in which it is

impossible to be moral. is that fair? >> i think it's unfortunately occurs sometimes. i think parents have to step back. often we certainly want to give our children things they need. we don't necessarily have to give children everything they want or we want. some of the times when you try to fix things for your kids, you really hurt them. you make them start to think they are not capable of accomplishing things on their own, or worst still they feel entitled to it so they don't have to try. it's an expectation. >> have you seen extreme cases in your practice? >> it's not only in the practice, it's across the country. you find a lot of times parents cheating, so to speak, by tutoring their kids on the entrance exam for the independence school system, an iq test, to the point that the "new york times" reported that they won't use the test. there has been a business of how to make sure my kid looks

better. >> we are talking about nursery school. >> or kindergarten. >> when they teach them to do maizes. >> you get the kids into a school you want, but it turns out it's overwhelming, competitive - you didn't do a service. you demoralised your child, if anything. >> is this like the steroids discussion in sports - everyone is doing it, parents feel they have no other choice. the psychologist barry schwartz you quote:. >> right, i talked to an sat tutor for the story, who charges $22,000 a year per kid to tutor elite mann hatton kids. most of the time when he meets a family the mum pulls him aside and says, "we are not like this, we are not these kinds of people." >> but they pay $22,000.

>> here is the $22,000. there's a feeling amongst parents that there's a gnawing feeling in their guts that this is not right, there's something broken, corrupt about this, but my kids' best friend is getting the tutor, and the other kids, so what am i supposed to do? >> handicap my child. >> yes, disadvantage my kid by not getting him the tutor to do the ethically right thing is to disadvantage your kid. it's a dilemma, an authentic dilemma. it's not exaggerated at the high end. it's true in all strata of society. >> it's right. it's nice to look at in new york. it's an incubator, an island. there's a tight number of applications. >> this is a coastal problem. new york, la. >> i think it happens - i want to get my kid on the team. i don't care if i scream at the

coach or not to put my kid in. if i scream loud enough, he'll bend to that pressure. whether or not my kid deserves to play, and maybe the way to deal with that is to throw the ball to your kid 1,000 times, which is a good thing to spend a lot of quality time with your child. that is not the short cut. this wins in two things. the kid gets better at sports and he got a lot of time with dad and mum. >> we are ringing our hands over kids bullying and cheating. if they watch parents do that, where do they learn it. >> what example are you giving. we have a social media question. >> in the comments section of your new yorker article, i argue that getting test time for a child or holding a child back a year is not about limiting opportunity for others, but levelling the playing field. what interventions are about limiting inequity and not cee

-- creating greater inequity. >> it's fair. in the reporting of the story i heard a lot of examples from kids that had iups, kids that needed them. a lot of parents held kids back a year so they'd be older and more mature, better able to take tests and perform in class. those are individual cases, but you have to do the right thing. >> that's the thing in sports. parents holding kids back so they are bigger and may get scholarships later. >> it's a disservice making kids have a test without extra time. if you have dyslexia or adhd, it's not fair, you don't read as fast. >> the issue of holding kids back for academics or sports - is that hurting children. >> that's a time where i think

there's the least harm. boys mature later than girls. the whole idea of changing the dates - we used to start school and then we moved to september 1st. if you look at the boys, july, august kids, and look at girls born in january/march. they are two different things. that's good for the class. there isn't a kid keeping them behind. >> something else you mention is you talk about by advantaging kids at every turn, you question parents blaming them. >> this is what the dr was saying at the outset. >> how do you hurt them by doing that? again, if you think about some of the advantages that people get at other times in life. if you study for the bar exam, you go to a bar review course. there are sat prep courses that are cheaper and accessible to most people. there are lots of aids that people will give for their kids. where is the line?

>> we know certain things will help your kid - reading to your kid every day, helping them to develop a better voe cabulary because you read to them. does it give them a leg up to the parent who doesn't read. >> of course. >> absolutely. we are talking about taking ambitious away from a -- ambitious away from the kid. if the child doesn't believe they could get into a school, if there's a message saying, "i took care of this for you, don't worry." you devalue the child and affect their self-stooem. the -- self-esteem, so the next challenge, they can't do it. you can say, "how are we going to practice next time?", so you get the message of sweetness of victory. >> your main message is what it does for children, and how they are affected by parental - whatever you want to call it.

i don't know if you call it machininations. >> the last example in the piece is a kid i know who refused to do the prep. i don't know that it's sad. he refused. his parents rang their hands saying, "don't throw your life away, know what you are doing." he said, "this is a broken system. it's not fair to the children. he doesn't get into college and sits around the house for a year and takes the sats, gets into school and it's not a top 50 school. he is studies classics and he's composing, and he's happy, his parents are proud. >> that's more important than going to an ivy league school. >> how many people do we know who go to the labour schools and not successors. that's the message you want to give - there's lots of ways to skin the cat and get to success.

what you want are happy children. >> the article is in the current new york magazine, ethical parenting - a fun read. >> coming up next - powerful women in business is out. where do they rank compared to male counterparts. later - should bob dylan have gotten serious consideration for the nobodiel prize in literature. we'll have a deb bait. coming up.

today's data dive runs down fortune magazine's list of powerful women in business. ibm's jenny tops the group. she's running the largest

technology and consulting employer in the world. pep si coe chairman and ceo is number two again. pep si coe runs 22 separate billion brands. number three the chairman and ceo of dupont. stock has doubled during her tenure. >> the top three most powerful women make more than $10 million, but don't make the top 10 in the highest paid women. there's topped by orical president and ceo, coming in 14th. her $43.6 million package is nothing to sneeze at. it wouldn't make the top 10 list of the highest paid men. yahoo president and ceo marissa myer is the second-highest at $36.6 million last year. she's eighth in the power rankings. mayer and catz - if you combined their salaries, they'd barely

beat the highest paid man. catz boss, larry ellie son. women control two-thirds of buying decisions in america - there's a way to go in equal compensation at the highest levels. >> coming up - the nobel prize in literature was reveal. a short-story writer won. why have our poetic musicians never won the prize?

>> the nobel prize for literature was awarded thursday. many feel bob dylan should have received stronger consideration. let's have a look at his famous lirics making the case for him. ♪ how many years can people exist ♪ ♪ before they're allowed to be free ♪ ♪ yes, and how many times can a man turn his head ♪ ♪ and pretend that he just

doesn't see ♪ ♪ the answer, my friend ♪ is blowing in the wint ♪ the answer is blowing in the wind ♪ i will not sing "blowing in the wind" all night. it inspired map, it became a social inspiration. many would argue it that the songs by dylan had more of a cultural impact as most nobel prize-winning novels, short stories and poems. alice munro, many say, are undeserving. if poewe et cetera are considered, why not poetic lit risists, like bob dylan, bruce springstein and rappist. >> bill wyman joins us. and eric harvey an assistant professor of communication, writing for "the atlantic," and

"rolling stones" magazines. you wrote an article about this, bill, lobbying for mr bob dylan. no one is saying alice munro shouldn't have one, but is the fact that bob dylan is popular - is it being held against him. >> that's a good point. it's a couple of things. he is popular and operating in the world of pop culture. the nobel prize in literature never got to that point where they recognise someone with that broad cultural appeal. and he rates pop lirics for pop songs. they work against him. the nobel committee will have to take the step and recognise pop culture. a lot of the famous writers we reveer from the past - charles dickinson - is an example, he was a pop novelist. >> bob dylan's words are beautiful, inspiring millions. why shouldn't he be a serious candidate? >> if you argue against bob

dylan receiving the nobel prize you can be accused of being anti-bob dylan, which i'm not, or anti-nobel prize, which i'm not. under lying the power to the claim is music can't stand on its own and needs to be rewarded on the terms of literature. music tran screned the world of literature and bob dylan, when he came out in the '60s, it was a point when people talked about pop musician in terms of literature. what is important to consider is we are talking about bill as a song writer within the confines of top music. >> can't we go further. don't the words stand on their own? the times they are a changing, that was recorded 50 years ago. listen to these lirics. they are just as timely today as then. i'll subject you to my reading.

he said, "come senators, congressman heed the call, don't stand at the doorway don't block up the hall. he that gets hurt is he who is stalled and there's a battle outside and it's ranging. it will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls for the times their a changing." that could have been written about the shutdown today. are they not as important as things written on paper by a political novelist who won the nobel prize. >> sure. i mean, of course, dylan is a legend. there's no contesting that. there is contesting that dylan may have gotten another claim, and we could start recognising other people. but at the same time i think that those words, as great as they are, when they are read with all due report to the host - they were originally written as a song. that was delivered in a unique voice, that of bob dylan, it was set to a melody. there were rhythms, production

techniques. bob dylan is a recording artist first and foremost. this is not to say we can't take his lirics out of the context and approach them as literature or poetry. music stands on its own. we need to let music be music. you can't dance to poetry. >> unless it's set to music. we have a social media question. i want to get back to that. let's go to that. >> a viewer says, "i have been hearing complaints that philip roth has not won for a decade. what do you think about roth as a candidate and if you had the power to crown roth or bob dylan, who would you choose? ". >> that's a good question. a couple of things - nobody deserves a nobel prize. they are not things that everyone who deserves one gets one. some get them, some don't. don updyke died without getting one, james joyce.

>> mark twain. >> bob dylan, though, is a chance for the academy to recognise this form of writer, and while i respect what eric is saying, i'm not saying he's not a great performing artist. he's possibly the greatest or second greatest, but the words - they are from high literature. he combines symbolist poetry. the beat, the beats go back through ginsberg - there are few with claims to high culture. finally, if you don't let bob dylan have one on the grounds his words were written for another purpose, you have to take it from george bernard shaw, eugene o'neil and pinto who wrote for the stage. >> when i discussed doing this topic tonight, eric, i was on the fence about it. then because of your argument - that these are songs, and music dependent. i went back and looked at the

lirics without listening to the music. some songs i heard hundreds of times, things like "m "mr tambourineman", and when i looked at them, it had a different meaning. the brilliance jumped out. should he not be considered as anything other than a liltry writer. >> we can give bob dylan any award we want to give him. that's fine. what i want to reiterate is the fact that what this - the claim here is that music - bob dillan is a recording artist of the. he puts out records and music. it's a different form of art and a different form of culture than literature. and we can read, you know, lirics are literature in the same way that you can reduce a movie to a screen play.

people have been trying to extract lirics from a musical context for decades. dillon was the start. i contend bob dylan wrote the lirics to be sung and performed. music is a performing art. literature is not. >> bill, you know, one of your arguments is that dylan is 72, nobel prizes are not awarded posthumously. he won a lot of awards, grammies, oscar, golden globe and the oscars tend to not prize popularity often either. it's not like bob dylan is vincent van go and dry -- died unrecognised. what importance would any message have? >> it would be nice, since there is opposition, to recognise the high literary innocence of his

work. if the academy doesn't give a nobel prize, it will be hard for them to give to any or song wrapper. it's hard to say other rap writers, that they didn't get them, chuck d from public enemy - it would be weird for him to get it and not a traditional writer. it would help the academy recognise that writing comes from odd places. eric makes a good point. you can extrapolate out. why not movie screen plays and comic book. you may get someone, who the words on the page become so reverberating the way becket's work is on the page - that those, i think, will muscle their way into the debate. >> it's a cumulative - it's a life's work in these cases, and bob dylan has a very big canon of music which you may not find

with many movie writers. i guess the question is eric - why not - maybe we should talk to the king of sweden and convince them to put up money and have an extra prize for music. >> there is the polar prize, i think, is one that rewards music artists, and they incorporated a broad global cannan of artists. it's strange that there is no nobel prize for music. instead of kind of retro fitting meeuwsicians with perhaps a literary bent into the nobel prize for literature, maybe it is time to do what you say. >> certainly it's an interesting discussion. i'm admitting my bias, rooting for bob dylan, and i thank you for being with us tonight. the show may be over but the conversation continues on the website. you can go to facebook, google+

and twitter. see you next time. good evening and well come to al jazeeramerica roorchl re-openine gort is turk into a bargaining chip. >> death benefit restored the money that military members got from washington after service members died while serving with the country. and a strike with the mass tryst system in the bay city. and stopping the collection of ivory. how to help save elephants and how the government shutdown is affecting is the effort.