a good weekend. else will ask. >> it seems like they can't agree to anything in washington no matter what. >> deadly violence in ukraine as the country prepares for sunday's presidential election. will vladimir putin respect the results? also, three near misses for airliners, makes one wonder, how safe are we in the air. sentence was blasted by the judge who was forced to give it. and florida classrooms become ground zero in gender war

over single sex education. i'm antonio mora. here is more on what's ahead. vladimir putin says russia will respect the outcome of the election. >> we trust deeds no not words. >> near violence is growing in eastern ukraine. >> the republic says it will not threat vote go on. >> we're heading 211 now. >> faa is investigating. >> two airlines almost collided over hawaii. >> over newark airport. >> stop decline. stop decline. >> the rest of my life in here as a tradeoff for my family's life? no matter what happens, if you fire a gun, 20 years. >> ferthe person who murdered or daughter, had he gotten the

mandatory 20 years, he would have been out today. >> claiming putin has lied about russia's role in stoking conflict in ukraine. >> who is he to judge? who is he to judge seriously. why doesn't he get a job and fight somewhere? >> putin's remarks at an international business forum came as eastern ukraine saw more bloodshed, seven people killed friday, thursday was the zedliest day for ukrainian -- deadliest day, 18 sold engineers were killed. the intense clashes came just as the country is preparing for a presidential election on sunday. putin said he would respect the results of the election, but results may be a full blown civil war which he backed on an

american coup. we are joined by kyiv, ukraine's, from washington, d.c. we're joined by roman popaduc, serving as the first american ambassador. principal at bingham consulting. i'll start with you, pp president putin blasted u.s. today. is he lark out in anger -- lashing out in anger because he has to backtrack on his expansionist ideas? >> i spoke to a number of are strategists, and some of them said that russia won 2 million

people in crimea but lost millions of people, 40 million people in ukraine. so in a way, even pro-kremlin experts said putin lost ukraine at this stage. >> president putin was visibly angry in talking about the u.s. and u.s. threatening more sanctions. he sarcastically asked what the justification would be. >> translator: i don't understand why. not long ago there was an earthquake in thailand and people perished maybe. we are to blame for that but civil war is broken out. but what does it have to do with us? >> have the sanctions taken their toll? >> well, first of all i'd like to address putin's comments.

they're in line with what he's been saying over the face of the past few months regarding the situation in ukraine, where the facts don't necessarily coincide with what he's been saying. so you have to take everything with a little bit of a judgment here. in terms of the sanctions specifically, antonio, would i say the samtions -- i would say the sanctions have not had such a great impact. i would say two things emanated from the sanctions. a lot of business people in ukraine and russia and the political circles in russia, the fact that a lot of western companies particularly in the united states are holding off doing business not knowing what the certainty of the future holds in russia and in the russian-ukrainian future, has an impact. in pooh nutshell, not so much

impact by the sanctions but the self-sanctions of companies in terms of the cufts are starting to -- activities are starting to hurt the russians and making them fear. >> we're seeing violence in ukraine picking up but then putin says he will respect the choice of the ukrainian people, ready to work with the ukrainian government, stopping short of saying he will consider the vote legitimate. >> he has achieved a lot of what he's wanted in the sense that he's destabilized that part of ukraine. there are armed conflicts going on. he's been able to drum up a lot of animosity against the central government. in the sense of gaining complete control that is one of the things that's leading him to have a more lenient view of the situation. he hasn't been enable to foement

the typfoe --foment the type ofn ukraine as he wished. the conflict with ukraine, a lot of what happens next would depend on what the reaction of the west will be. >> so keeping his options open. anna, you recently wrote that putin is pulling back from the border because clever people finally convinced him he was a little wrong about ukraine on a series of levels. >> yes on series of levels. that the number of pro-russian ukrainians on the east of ukraine wasn't as significant as the president might have been told earlier, before the referendum. besides many experts in russia

to be providing for luhansk and donetske, russia paying bigger pensions and better salaries. it would be expensive for russia to provide for millions of people. and besides, it would be one thing to capture to invade, to take control over eastern ukraine, but another thing to keep that control. military experts told me that russia would have to create thousands of checkpoints all around eastern ukraine. and if now the forces are mostly of contract officers, units, they would be necessary to bring draftees to ukraine. and once russia deals with draftees is auxiliaries criticism. >> the front runner on sunday is

the chocolate king poroshenko. if he wins, it could be a distinct possibility because he seems way ahead. this is a guy of native russian speaker, well-known by russian eleads. it is hard to portray him as antirussian. >> that wos good for the country and the situation that he be a first round winner. poroshenko brings a number of things not table. he was on the ground for the maidan be revolution, he's also indicated he's very pro-west in terms of having an association with europe. he at the same time is very pragmatic. he is a businessman, has business affairs in russia.

he was one of the coe founders along with yanukovych of the party. he is very pragmatic, this is very appealing to the russians, this may be an individual with whom putin can deal with that poroshenko himself has said, he would like to have good relations with russia, doesn't see russia as an opponent, that ukraine and russia have to have good relations. so his rhetoric background and demeanor all indicated that this is someone putin may be able to deal with. at the same time is he very good for ukraine, he would move towards the west, he would grant stability to the country, cement legitimacy of the government and he would be able to rally a lot of the forces, economic forces in particular, since he comes with a background of an oligarch himself, rally a lot of the

oligarchs himself in moving forward. >> anna, i see you nodding in agreement with the ambassador. is the popularity strong there? >> he is the most strong candidates of 20. the people i spoke to in kyiv haven't made up their mind who they're going to vote for, even today, two days before the election they watch debates on television. today there was a debate between credit tymochenko, monopolies, chance. so people are a little lost now. they first of all think a lot about the refltion o heftion of

the maidan. ,ing to remember the revolution of dignity. tymoshenko, his son married a russian girl from inturg and ar. petersburg. the being number of pro-russian people in odessa have increased have o after the fire. so some people can't even talk with each other about these issues. hopefully on sunday the election day will actually begin better time, better era for ukraine and stabilize the situation. >> let's hope.

it's is a great time. thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure, thank you. turning to the crisis of ukraine, to the number of people flying this holiday weekend whether they should be concerned about their safety. on may 9th two united airms jeairliners, came so close to eh other. april 25th miscommunication from a honolulu air traffic controllers, put a u.s. airlines flight on collision court with a united airlines plane. united dropped his plane 600 feet in 60 seconds. to avoid a deadly mid air collision. united airlines plane landing on an intersectining neern.

>> sea plane pilot, good to see you robert as always. three near misses in three weeks have got nearly 2 million people flying this weekend. should passengers be concerned? >> they shouldn't be. these three near-collisions it's just statistically we have so many close calls with so many airplanes on these airways that it's just a matter of time before two get close to each other. just a statistical anomaly that these thing happened. good thing the system worked, these mistakes were caught before anything bad happened. >> according to the statistics from faa, 44 near musts in 12 -- misses in 12 months. compared to the prior year there were only 1900 near misses.

why are those numbers still climbing? >> they didn't really climb. the common belief is it has more to do with the tighter controls of how these things are reported rather than the actual increase in near misses. >> the faa did report a near miss versus high risk incident. >> a high visk a near miss and closest of the close ones. there is a good chance there would have been an accident had action not been taken to avoid it. the ntsb has worked very strongly to encourage the airlines and the fee to make changes to the -- the faa to make changes. >> there's been no, sir crashes in the sky, from planes equipped

with air traffic avoidance system. it is highly unlikely that big planes would crash in the air because the system alerts them both to go in different directions? >> yes, called tcast 2, and what tcast two is these systems in these airplanes actually talk to each other. one knows what the other will do so they don't both climb that way. one will climb and the other will descent. after resolution authority. and you are required to do what the system says even though you haven't been cleared to do so by tampletc. there actually was a horrible crash years back, between a russian airliner carrying a number of children and a european airliner. the t the-2 boxes gave the pilots the correct way to escape but the controller told one of the pilots to do the opposite, and as a result the two collided

and everybody aboard was killed. >> smaller planes don't have it? >> actually, more and more do. i fly a 4-seat airplane and it has a sophisticated system on it. we will see where other airplanes are very precisely. it is something called adsb. an the faa has mandated that every plane flying in the u.s. air space have this system. >> so these will all get better shortly. absolutely. when you think about it, you have a huge air space above the united states and when airplanes get close to each other is when they're funneled into these airports. when they're arriving and departing. by necessity they have to be much closer in the air. and that's when the most dangerous interactions take place. the incident in houston i think really underscored that.

it was a simple mistake where the controller from what i've heard advised the airplane to make a right turn instead of a left turn and brought it in close separation standards to another plane. and told one of the planes to stop the climb. it's a scary incident. >> in newark it was intersecting runways. in honolulu, it was miscommunication of the air controller. stressful job. are the controllers the weak link? >> i hate to say the controllers are a weak link. they do a fantastic job, they are consummate professionals. but all it takes is one spall mistake for an accident to happen. but we pilots make mistakes occasionally that bring us to close to other airplanes and the controllers often save our bacon

when that happens. >> robert, the increase of number of drones of different sizes that are now operating in the united states how big an issue could they be? >> that's a great question antonio. i think it's something we have to take notice of very closely. regulations very tightly controlled where drones are flown and how they're flown and by whom, to prevent he theeps kinds of to prevent these kinds of incidents from happening. >> robert, thank you for joining us. >> thank you antonio. >> doesn't hurt anyone and still ends up with a 20-year prison sentence. a case that defies conventional wisdom. do children learn better in single-sex classrooms and should public schools be allowed to have them? what do you think? join the conversation on

facebook and google plus pages. >> al jazeera america presents the system with joe berlinger >> mandatory minimums are routinely used to coerce plea bargains >> mandatory minimums >> the whole goal is to reduce gun crime, now we've got people saying "this isn't fair"... >> does the punishment always fit the crime? >> had the person that murdered our daughter got the mandatory minimum, he wouldn't have been out. >> the system with joe burlinger only on al jazeera america

the performance review. that corporate trial by fire when every slacker gets his due. and yet, there's someone around the office who hasn't had a performance review in a while. someone whose poor performance is slowing down the entire organization. i'm looking at you phone company dsl. check your speed. see how fast your internet can be. switch now and add voice and tv for $34.90. comcast business built for business.

>> should a man who fired a warning shot into his own wall to defend his family and left no one injured be serving two decades in prison because the law doesn't allow any wiggle room for sentencing? mandatory minimums are fixed prison sentences judges are required to impose for some crimes. they're meant to keep violent offenders in prison. but unintended consequences are tearing some families apart. the next case. >> the man is attacking sarah, my husband, he's holding the pistol down at the floor. he says to him you have four seconds to leave this house. instead of leaving the house,

the young man decides to come forward. >> if the state of florida requires the rest of my life in here, as a tradeoff for my family's life, it's a bargain. i'll do it. i firmly believe, had i not done what i did that day, my daughter sarah would be dead. >> orville wallard's wife sandy joins us via skype, and greg n newburn, director of families against mandatory minimums. the next edition of the system on sunday. your daughter was dating a teenager who threatened your family and your lust. he had beaten up your husband and when he tried to take your daughter again your husband who had no criminal record stepped

in. what happened? >> well, after my husband had been attacked by the young man, the young man left with my daughter again. and my husband went to rest. couple hours later, the young man returned to the house with my daughter. and they were having a violent fight which then, in her bedroom, turned physical. i was on my way to try to break it up. and i was having some problems with transischemic attacks, which are small strokes. and on my way, i had another one. so that kind of left me incapacitated. next thing i know this young man bursts out of the bedroom, stands before me. and punches a hole in the living

room wall. at that point, i find that my husband is standing next to me, because my daughter, my older daughter, heidi, had gone and gotten him. and because he was incapacitated physically and couldn't fight him off, he brought a pistol. and he shot the hole in the wall, after he had warned him, and he didn't heed it. instead, came forward. after that, the young man turned around and walked out the door. >> orville had been a college professor. he has a master's degree. again as i said no criminal record. this moves forward in the judicial system and orrich hill decides to turn down a plea for probation only. he did so, the judge said the stevens was obviously

competitivexpensivebutexcessivet it. seeming like the old soviet union, seemed heartbreaking. >> yes, didn't seem anything like what you would think of the united states. >> he was your family's breadwinner. a devastating effect on your family. >> yes, it is. we lost the insurance. lost the house, couldn't keep up with the payments. the family had to split up. i ended up taking my younger daughter up here to wisconsin. and my older daughter is living with her grandparents in florida. >> you know greg, advocates of mandatory minimums say that they keep violent criminals off the street. they serve as a strong deterrent. they came about in part because of irprattic sentencing by judges. do you think they do good?

>> they don't do good at all. you look at the data, i think it's clear. gun crimes were dropping consistently, if you look at the data that drop flat everyoned, the same year we passed 10-20 life. there has been no general deterrent effect since ten-20 life. the issue has been studied extensively and nobody has been able to find a deterrent effect of ten-20 life, exactly like, they don't do any good at all. and of course and obviously they do harm in this case and several other case like it. mr. waller is not the only person. >> now there is a strong counterpoint to orville's story in this episode of the system. it calls about adiy pendleton. her case made national news.

let's look at her story. haydiah pendleton was me and i was her but i got to grow up. >> to bury a child is just so disarming. >> and the person that murdered our daughter, he was out already on a gun charge. and had he been there, had he got the mandatory minimum, he wouldn't have been out. so our daughter would still be alive today. >> you know, how do you respond to their story, greg? because there is the argument that since mandatory minimums came into place, even if they don't serve as a deterrent, they do keep violent ofngders off the street -- offenders off the street. >> there is no doubt, if there's

a violent offender, they do need to be off the street. if they're violent and show they can't get along in civil society they need to be removed. the overwhelming evidence of the state levels for 30 years shows there is no deterrent effect for mandatory minimums. the overwhelming majority of cases where there's a clear case where someone needs to be off the streets that person is removed from the streets. not to mention that even in the cases where there is an incapacitation effect, we can put resources in place where we get more efficient results more crime control by putting more state police on the streets. we don't need the mandatory minimum to guarantee that somebody gets prison time. we just don't. that case has been made over and over and over again for decades. we don't need it. an we know for a fact every time we pass a mandatory minimum,

like ten-20 life in florida there will be the unintended consequences. you don't get the promised benefits. they never pan out the way the proponents say they will. but you will get the unintended consequences. it happens every time. new york, new jersey, florida, california, everywhere it's been tried, we get the same deterrent effect and no intended consequences. >> now we're spending more than $6.8 billion, more than four times the rate of inflation. sandy, i'd like to end with you. i know that there's been a very strong attempt to get a retrial for orville because there were real questions about the kind of relegal representation he got in that case. what is next for him that he'll get out? >> well, the one thing that's next is the clemency. are and there's -- and there's been a lot ofness publication on

thiofness -- ofpublication on t. because he really didn't do anything wrong except put a hole in the wall. there was no intention to harm anybody. i'm hoping that the governor will see that. and find that he's not going to be a threat once he's let loose. and grant his clemency. >> i hope for your case that that does happen and it happens soon. because i know he's had a rough time in prison. thank you for joining us. the new edition of the system debuts on al jazeera america on sunday. do kids do better in school and leave better prepared for life when they learn if single-sex classrooms or do both do better when they learn in co-ed classes?

the american civil liberties union has filed a lawsuit, because, aclu claims that quote by training teachers that boys and girls learn differently anding teaching boys and girls differently, school districts create a curriculum that is harmful for more students. for more, i'm joined by madison, wisconsin director of gender and women, co-ed schooling on students for american psychological situation. janet thank you. a study of studies, you found there's no significant advantage to single sex education. >> that's right, yes. we had data from over 1.6 million students, k-12, we didn't look at college or

preschool. and these studies, i should say for listeners who aren't familiar, metaanalysis is just a statistical technique used widely in psychology and medicine actually, when we had multiple studies of the same question. to compare single sex schooling and co-educational schooling worldwide. we found no advantages to single sex schooling for a variety of outcomes including math performance, math attitudes, verbal performance test scores and so on. so there just weren't any advantages. >> where do we get to this conventional wisdom that has existed for some time, that girls in particular benefit from single sex schooling because studies have argued that and we've seen tv hidden camera investigations showing boys raising their hands and being more aggressive and louder forcing teachers to pay more

attention othem rather than the girls. is there nothing to that? >> well, what we need to do of course is improve co-education. i think we have ways of doing that to get dpirls and boys working -- girls and boys work together, more cooperatively. that said, there are tremendous problems in single sex classrooms, some talk about boys being distracted by girls. but if you've ever been in an all boys classroom or sports teem or anything like that you know that boys can distract each other a lot. they poke and they prod and they bump. >> i taught fifth grade boys one year janet so i certainly know how crazy boys can be in a classroom you're right. >> exactly. >> so there's a national association for single sex education that list studies that support advantages to single sex education saying it actually breaks down stereotypes allowing each gender to flourish.

there was another study that shows south korean boys and girls more likely to go to schools than otherwise. >> those are cherry picked studies and our meta-analysis, we characterized them by quality of study. many of the advantages to single sex schooling they have a confound with quality of the students and quality of the schools. so they may compare an elite single sex girls school with a randomly selected coed school. that's not fair. they're going to succeed sure but not a fair comparison. so we took quality into account. >> what do you say to the hillsborough district, it claims that two schools improved

dramatically. another school that had gotten cs now has an a, another schools that got cs and ds now have an a. >> we really don't know anything. we just know there was a change. often there are novelties effects, that everybody gets buzzed about some new phenomenon. i'd like to know whether five years from now they'll still be showing those advantages. they select the best teachers. i'm all for great teachers. i come from a teaching family. they select the best teachers, they get them buzzed for this whole program and yes, they can find some advantages for a small time. i don't think they will last. >> how about extracurriculars? there's been talk or studies about how girls end up being -- or having fewer leadership positions when they're in coed schools even proportionately,

that more boys end up being leaders in schools, in coed schools? >> well, i think that those trends have largely reversed themselves in the last ten years. sometimes i think we're fighting battles about what was happening to girls in the 1960s. the majority of high school valedictorians are girls these days, more girls than boys go to college today. girls are thriving, getting better grades than boys. i don't worry about girls in co-educational schools, i went to one myself, i felt it was wonderful. i went to a co-educational college and it felt it was wonderful for me. >> we'll stay on top of what's going on in florida and across the country on this, it's a fascinating topic. janet hyde, it's good to have you with us. >> you're welcome. >> how we've looked at the

second amendment in very different ways over the past 200 years. and why has the north american real estate moved to our colder neighbor to the north? and later, c-sparspan was nevers fascinating. why the love for political dramas.

>> on techknow... >> i'm at the national wind institute, where they can create tornados... >> a greater understanding... >> we know how to design for the wind speeds, now we design for... >> avoiding future tragedies >> i want a shelter in every school. >> techknow every saturday, go where science, meets humanity. >> this is some of the best driving i've ever done, even though i can't see. >>techknow >> is there an enviromental urgency? only on al jazeera america >> fewer debates rouse more

passions in the u.s. today than gun control. the second amendment consists of a single convoluted sentence. a well regulated militia, being secure for state the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. did the framers of the constitution intend that to mean, every individual has the right to own a gun or has that twisted the intention of our forefathers. michael walton, good to have you with us. you do a biography of the second amendment, you look at it through the history, from the beginning, from its origination, at a time when every white male between 16 and 60 had to have a gun and member of the militia. back then there was no discussion or issue about whether there should be an individual issue to bear arms.

>> you're right. this is very controversial. the way we look at the second amendment has changed over time. and the original founders the way they wrote it and looked at it was from a world that's almost impossible for us to imagine. as you say every single white man was required by law to own a gun and to bring it into their militia service. and the amendment was written because they were worried, some people were worried that the new united states government as it was being created, would threaten tyranny and the 13 state militias. >> it was most about each state having its militia. >> absolutely. >> and the fear of the government being tyrannical. >> absolutely. does it protect the individual right or the militia? in a way it's both. to protect the individual right to have a gun to fulfill a duty

to serve in the militia. the question is the militias vanished pretty soon after that. the reality is over time there were a lot of guns, a lot of people had guns and throughout america's history there were gun laws. gun rights and gun laws went hand in hand, dodge city, the great frontier town, there was a sign placed in the middle of the town, welcome to dodge city, firearms prohibited. giving you an unfettered right to a gun, something people advanced. >> you are pretty much look at the 200 years after the second amendment and you say really there weant much discussion about it -- wasn't much discussion. it was referred as the lost amendment. >> it was an amazing thing. the supreme court didn't rule that the second amendment gives you an individual right to a gun until 2008. that was the first time.

it ruled four times before otherwise but there weren't thousands of cases. it wasn't something that people didn't think was all that important. when the first federal gun law was debated in the 1930s, the national rhythm association testified about it. and asked, do you think there's any constitutional problem, they said we haven't given any thought to that question. it's a very different time. >> that all changed. >> it's changed for sure. >> in the 1970s when the nra in fact dramatically changed its mission. >> that's right. the nra has been around for a long time. it was started by veterans of the civil war, civil war officers who were worried that the union troops had shown poor marksmanship. it was really to train people to shoot. it became a sportsman's organization, and in the

1970s, a backlash against liberal 1960s, the nra changed its mission. got taken over by what's referred as the revolt in cincinnati. a new activist group took over the organization, put in new leadership and it became a constitutional crusade about the second amendment and against all gun laws as we know. >> and ironically back then, chief justice berger referred to individual rights to own guns as a fraud. but that changed as the nra started lobbying and this became much more of a discussion in the public forum. and then antonin scalia wrote his opinion, and that changed everything. >> the whole supreme court was responding to a very textbook legal campaign waged by the nra

and other gun rights supporters starting in the 1970s to change this provision, to change constitutional law. they changed with scholarship. there were a lot of people who went back and looked at the founding era and thought, no no, not what you think, they moved public opinion. public opinion's shifted and now it's the common view and then eventually the supreme court. >> the ship rarely gets turned around once the supreme court establishes a right. at this point there have been a bunch of efforts to restrict gun rights within the supreme court's decision. is that what we'll see? again you see all sorts of legislatures taking actions but courts some deciding some are constitutional and some aren't. seems like we're on a back and forth on this.

>> alexis de toqueville, said this will end up in a lawsuit. that was in the 1800s. the begun rights forces are on the march, you have laws, new laws that allow people to carry weapons, in georgia for example, there's a law that makes it so you can carry a gun just about anywhere. on the odor hand, the supreme court ruled like all rights there could be limitations. not everybody can carry a gun at every time. and dozens of courts, dozens of federal courts all over the country have considered some of these issues since the heller case, since 2008. and overwhelmingly, they have upheld the existing gun laws. they've said yes, there's a right but there's also common sense limitations. so it may well be that maybe the heller case did gun control forces a favor by sort of

drawing a line and saying, you know what, the gun-grabbers as they might call them they're not coming to take your guns. but who can have a gun, how can we make sure the there's safety but the supreme court hasn't spoken again. it's going to wind up being debated most likely at the highest level in the next couple of years. >> of course the gra framers who are -- the framers who are great writers didn't done a good job here. >> they did us no favors on the commas and punctuation this time. >> michael, thank you, second amendment, a biography. coming up, michael jackson is setting new records from the grave. but some feel his new album is

off the wall. and next, our data dive. dive.

>> we're following the stories of people who have died in the desert >> the borderland memorial day marathon >> no ones prepared for this journey >> experience al jazeera america's critically acclaimed original series from the beginning >> experiencing it has changed me completely >> follow the journey as six americans face the immigration debate up close and personal. >> it's heartbreaking... >> i'm the enemy... >> i'm really pissed off... >> all of these people shouldn't be dead... >> it's insane... >> the borderland memorial day marathon only at al jazeera america

>> today's data dive travels to nenorth america's most expensive for are real estate. the average price in vancouver is $733,000. the city is beautiful and hollywood's second home but the canadian city has been very hot lately with a 40% jump in remits values from a year ago. san diego, in the top five. canada has three in the top 6, vancouver's dominance may be in part because of huge chinese investments. it's a prime example of how some

cities are benefiting from what's become a global market for real estate. decades of housing data have found what are called superstar cities. those cities draw large amount of foreign investment. following rich around the world. international investors accounted for $68.2 billion much real estate investment in 12 months ending in last year. that's about 6.3% of the total in the u.s. and their focus is mostly in florida, california, arizona and texas. the knight frank wealth report found differences of what your money will buy in the most sought-after location worldwide. $1 million gives you virtually nothing in monaco. the size of a walk in closet. you can get twice that for a luxury apartment in new york.

that's about the size of a studio. and explosion of tv series. series. federal officials are trying to figure out how two commercial jets came within a few feet of each other. second time in three months. art heist, $500 million of masterpieces, coming from boston a quarter-century ago. coming up right after "consider this."

the night's events, a smarter start to your day. mornings on al jazeera america >> the popularity of washington politicians has cratered. why are we so fascinated by tv shows that take place inside the beltway? never have we had so many and a whole bunch more are often the way for the fall season. bill wyman joins us from phoenix, arizona. always good to see you. polls give congress an average approval rating of 13%. only 28% think the country is going in the right direction. but we've got house of cards, home land, scandal. these are everywhere from the

major networks to premium channels to the online, on demand services. like i said, we have more coming. why are we so drawn to these shows where people are so fed up with washington? >> washington has a slightly lower approval rating than hollywood and the television industry. this is a horse they were beating for a long time. there was a show called commander in chief, they tried to put on in the wake of the west wing departure. but 21 set a new intreek intrige standard. house of cards, we really don't know how many people actually watch it yet, because it's on amazon and they're not saying. >> on netflix. >> amazon -- you're right, netflix. a lot of them are coming in the post-24 success.

>> modern trend of political shows, west wing, 1999 to 2006. it generally showed washington in a positive light with honorable public servants working to better the country but compare that to house of cards which shows washington being full of manipulative, sleazy, power hungry sociopaths. why the change? >> exactly. there were some other positive shows that drew little traction, political animals. reflecting the washington we see in the papers and the media every day which let's face it is not an attractive place, in any way, shape or form. >> one is the prominence of strong female leads, claire danes in political animals, katherine heigl, state of affairs.

tea leone, madam secretary. actresses are all asking for roles like claire danes has on home land? >> the zeitgeist, in 2016, that sort of hangs in our consciousness right now. let's face it, hollywood is very big into the democratic party. there's a little wishfulness too. these programs have been coming fast and furious, and not all of them make it, remember, there was that big budget event, the katherine heigl show, a lot of hopes are riding on them. and many could be a flash in the pan in the tv archives. >> michael jackson, love never felt so good featuring just tim

timberlake, the only artist to have a top 10 hit in five decades. this is coming to be expected. elvis, tupac, others have had popotatoposthumous south caroli. >> that's about a 10th as much as a big album ten years ago would have garnered. not a lot of public interest i think. >> but quincy jones is not happy bit at all. this is what you have to say about it. >> they're trying to make money and i understand it. but the state, the lawyers, it's about money.

>> quincy jones, of course he was the big producer behind most of jackson's big successes. does he have a point? >> oh, absolutely. i mean the estate, it's the estate's job to monetize the thing. is there's common sense. michael jackson released barely no music in the last ten years of his life. i kind of think this is the last gasp and it's going to make a little money for estate. considering reports he was nearly bankrupt before he passed away and the estate since has generated hundreds of millions of dollars. so his harris will be living -- his heirs will be thrifg high life. >> i don't think -- living the high life. >> i think they'll come up with duets and other things. good to have you on the show. the show may be over but the

conversation continues. you can also finds us on twitter @ajconsiderthis. see you next time. is. >> hello and welcome to al jazeera america. i'm jonathan betz in new york. john siegenthaler has the night off. takes on president obama with harsh words for the commander in chief and the west. it's happened again another near miss between two passenger planes. person of interest, a big break. tinsel town for new orleans.