>> and and . . iraq collapsing as islamic insurgents threaten to attack baghdad. inside the group that's fighting civil wars in two countries. bowe bergdahl returns home as new letters from his time in captivity emergeses fathers, you may want to do the laundry, how doing chores can have a long-lasting effect on your daughters. and summer tv is not just

re-ru re-runs. hello, i'm antonio mora, and this is "consider this". >> releasing the five people, negotiating with terrorists. >> information about bowe bergdahl's time as a prisoner. >> letters written to his family whilst in captivity. >> the key thing is bowe bergdahl is writing under duress. >> our worst fears are realised. the president should get rid of his national security team. >> iraq will need more help. >> intelligence was flat-footed. no one saw the insurgency coming with the seed it did. >> i.s.i.l. is prominent. >> who is funding this organization? >> criminality, private citizens in the gulf. >> the obvious question is is baghdad next. we begin with the islamic militants in striking distance of baghdad. fighters with the islamic state of iraq and levant, known as

i.s.i.l. vowed to take iraq's capital city. the insurgents may be flushed with cash, robbing banks in mosul taking $400 million and bars of gold. they may be armed by taking control of weapons left behind by the fear of the military. as the fear of civil war spreads, the blame game erupts and washington. >> it's not like we haven't seen the problem coming, or over the last five or six months, the terrorists moving in, taking control of western iraq, mosul, they are 100 miles from baghdad. what is the president doing? taking a nap. >> iraqi prime minister nouri al-maliki begged the u.s. for help, president obama offered extensive comments on the crisis. >> my team is working around the clock to identify how we can provide the most effective

assistance to them. i don't rule out anything. because we do have a state of making sure that these jihadists are not getting a permanent foothold in either iraq or syria for that matter. meanwhile three plane loads of americans, contractors and civilians were evacuated from a base north of baghdad as insurgents neared. they were there on a training mission for iraqi forces that has been suspended indefinitely. joining us is omar, our correspondent. good to see you. you are in baghdad. i.s.i.l. spokesman taunted nouri al-maliki, calling on forces to move on baghdad. what is the latest in the fighting. is the iraqi military battling back with effectiveness. >> to some degree, yes. not in baghdad. they launched, according to the

defence ministry, they launched several air strikes at different targets in the province and main city of mosul and targets in tikrit. the two cities, tikrit and mosul, however, are still under the control of i.s.i.l. fighters. when you see the footage released by the defense military, it shows a number of air strikes at what we believe or what the government is telling us that this is a base, a military base in mosul, and i.s.i.l. fighters control it, and apparently they have destroyed a number of vehicles and killed an unknown number of fighters. it seems they are trying to gain momentum there. the situation is described in the west as chaotic, as iraq disintegrating. what is going on. prime minister nouri al-maliki wanted parliament to declare a state of emergency, so few

legislators showed up, there wasn't a quorum. what about reports that some parties are collaborating with i.s.i.l. fighters and former members of the iraqi army under saddam hussein. >> those reports are coming from the government, and some sources where the fighters take role of those cities. now, what is happening in parliament is that not enough mps showed up. and that's why members of prime minister nouri al-maliki's state of law accused his political opponents of doing this on purpose, to make the prime minister appear weak and play into the advantage of the anti-government forces. a senior member told al jazeera that those political parties are collaborating with i.s.i.l. fighters, with former members of the iraqi army.

those guys are based in different areas of iraq, mainly in mosul and other provinces. this is what they are accusing the prime ministers of nouri al-maliki. and how about the concern, as you have got those issues there, that evgeni malkin being a shiite has become a closer ally of the shiites in iran, and reports that the iranian revolutionary guard may be involved in iraq. >> we heard the reports. i think you would understand the sensitivity of the subject of the even if it's a fact, i don't think it would be in the interest of nouri al-maliki to confirm it. it became a known fact in iran. since the occupation of iraq by the united states, and the withdrawal of the american forces they were way too close.

there are reports from security forces in baghdad saying that special forces were sent. special sources could be shiite militias. when the americans were based. they called them the special forces. >> joining us from washington d.c. is a senior fellow director of research for the foreign policy programme where he specialises in u.s. defense strategy, the us of military force and american foreign policy. good to have you on the show. some analysts i saying that the situation in iraq could deteriorate to the point that it will be worse than afghanistan before 9/11. do you agree. >> it's hard to make the comparison. that we are having the conversation is amply worrisome and make us realise we have to thing of a wider range of opses

that we have been considering. i don't know how to measure it against afghanistan. none of us know how to measure it. if we see large scale sanctuaryies developing for al qaeda, that's the world we don't want to be in. that's a fundamental concern, and any place there's an al qaeda sanctuary of substantial size on the planet earth, we have to worry. that's why we have significant policies from yemen to mali, libya, nigeria. there's no place they have a sanctuary where we can be indifferent. we need a new strategy. talking about the size. i.s.i.l.'s mission is to create an islamic state. it crew out of al-qaeda and iraq. it's so brutal. how far along are they, control

central iraq all the way up. right now they have a lot of territory, i agree. it's a bad situation. the question is what do we do next. by me, the various groups, governments and other allies that we have that we were working with. we have to be specific. in syria we need one type of strategy, which is more muscular support for the opposition. partly to put pressure on bashar al-assad to negotiate a peace and power sharing deal, and to put pressure on i.s.i.l. in iraq we need to find a way to work with the government. the government of the evgeni malkin -- government of nouri al-maliki, it is a problem. there's no way to work with them until nouri al-maliki steps down. we may need greater military help as lefage and a bargaining

chip. what about the u.s. role. president obama made extensive comments on the deteriorating military situation, saying iraq needs help and he is considering options, but no troops on the ground. what are the options. what can the u.s. do, what should to do? >> to say all options are on the table but no troops considered is an oxy moran. we have to be a little careful. there may be a need for special forces, for example. perhaps americans can help with commando raids. perhaps we can help with intelligence, signals intelligence to figure out where the i.s.i. s fighters are and tart them. doesn't mean americans have to take a lead role, but to rule out the possibility of putting american boots on the ground may be a mistake under the circumstances, because the threat is serious, whether we want to acknowledge it or not.

i would say, however, before we would provide an amped up american help, we have to use leverage to get the iraqis to make reforms in their politics. otherwise the sunni population will rebell and resist against maliki and his army and police and the strategy will not work. >> maliki is sectarian and favouring shiites. >> senator mccann said we should have left troops in iraq and he blasted the president on wednesday saying he was furious, what we are seeing is a failure in american security policy. let's listen. >> the president should get rid of the security team, including the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. bring in general pet ray us, general keen and turn the situation around. >> speaker of the house john boehner agrees with john mccain saying the administration took a nap on iraq and chaos is a consequence. do they have a point?

>> i agree with some of john mccain's critics, but not all of them. what i would say is they tried to keep a force in iraq, some say not hard enough. the iraqis asked us to leave at the end of 2011 and this should be a lesson to iraqi friends. they made a mistake and are beginning to recognise that. fundamentally nouri al-maliki is the problem, and he needs to change his team. i don't see a point in calling for wholesale dismissals of the american national security team. that smacks to me of frustration, rather than serious analysis. if there's an use policy option, we should talk about it now, we don't need to wait for a different kind of u.s. advisor. prime minister nouri al-maliki created a problem. it is that he is seen as a shia shovanist. he worked hard in 2008/2009 to

overcome the reputation and do thinks to help the suedish and kurdish population. he's knew a different player. the head democrat and the house intelligence committee said the u.s. cannot afford to be the world sheriff. can we not be? you say we should intervene to make sure al qaeda does not get a foothold here and elsewhere. >> the president himself said al qaeda or global terrorism is the number one threat to the united states. i think he's correct. any time al qaeda or an affiliate is setting up camp in a large swath of territory. we have to be concerned. it doesn't mean we go in and unthinkingly apply brute force with american troops. but it means that we have to stay aware of the full range of

options and consider a number of them and perhaps consider in this case going in with some special forces with intelligence, with airpower, provided that - provided that the iraqi government is serious about doing its part in a way that maliki has been. >> michael o'hanlon from the brookings institute, thank you. i.s.i.l. has claimed much sorry sourth and north of iraq with the aim of creating an islamic state. ize it's rise to a brutal strength may be surpassed by its fortune. it is run by an eniing mat yik leader and may be the richest terror group, after stealing hundreds of millions from banks in mosul when they captured the city. we are joined by robert

mcfadden, senior vice president at the sufan group providing strategic security intelligence services, a former assistant director with counter-terrorism with the naval criminal terror services. i.s.i.l. has gained a lot of territory and a lot of money. where is it getting its funding from? >> it started back when it transitioned from the islamic state in iraq into its current form as i.s.i.l. in operations in syria a funding streams came from taking money from christian shia and sunnis thought to be supporting the regime. up until what happened the other day in mosul, with a reported $400 million, it was effective in raising money from some of the things i mentioned and it worked hard to control the oil

producing reege scrops in east syria. >> it's taken over eastern syria and has power-generating plants. the enemy is paying them money. it's part of the complexity of the story. at the time it seemed opposed to overthrow it to establish the state. there's some of that back and forth, because it's generating money. >> is it getting money from saudi arabia. because bashar al-assad - have they got funding from saudi arabia sources. >> that's a funding stream over the course of the past few years, outside donors, particularly the rich gulf states. >> the potential of this money, hundreds of millions, is that they pay fighters, and it's already a large group. they have looked at how many fighters they have. >> exactly. and going back to the time it went into syria, one of the

things that was part of the drawer, beside being deemed as a group of action, it paid a better stipend in iraq for the iraqis, and in syria. >> you have estimated that they've brought in 3,000 fighters from the west. >> that's right. our estimate and a report from research is it's upwards of 4,000 foreign fighters. >> 12,000 foreign fighters into syria 3,000 from the west. the bulk amongst all the groups on the sunni hard-core side have gone to i.s.i.l. >> let's talk about this eniing gnattic leader. people don't know much about him. only a couple of pictured out of him. some refer to him as a powerful leader. he wears a mask.

who is this guy. >> shadowy, and the two photographs are the only phone publicly available. he's an iraqi from the sunni heartland. has bona fide religious potentials. but he has those religious ced ep shalls. that's a draw, reported to be charismatic and demanding of the utmost of secrecy. he will not allow non-iraqis to be part of the military. >> he maintains greater security. >> they want to create an islamic state. do they have it already? >> that's a good pointed. they declared, and this put him at odds in al qaeda. they declared the islamic state of iraq and syria, i.s.i.l. thing of it as the seeds of an embryonic rate.

ultimately, their aspirations is all the way from central asia, across the middle east to north africa, to regain all the lands. that is the halafa or calafat. they may not want to stop. they threatened. do you think they'll go that far? >> threatening, yes. farce making gains into -- as far as making gains into baghdad and other areas outside the sunni triangle will be difficult. they'll fight a better command and control, better motivated force of shia fighters in baghdad and you have the reports, of course, of outside help. >> always good to have you with us. thank you very much. >> now for stories from around the world.

we begin in brazil with the opening day the world cup marred by violent protests. police fired rubber bullets, and noise bombs, holding a protesters down, spraying in the eyes with pepper spray. it was not enough to keep tense of thousands of fans from attending the opening match between croatia and the host team brazil. despite the controversy brazil loves soccer. next to north korea, spraem leader kim jong un is unhappy with incorrect forecasts, he showed up at the meteorological service to show them how to do their jobs. the country is suffering the worst spring drought in 30 years. we finished in main where george h.w. bush celebrated his 90th birthday, the way he's celebrating the 80th, and 85th.

the first going back to 1844. the plane was shot down. this time when he landed he was met by his cheering crowd. he told his granddaughter that he had one more left in him. he told the world when he woke up on his birthday: that's what is happening around the world. coming up, two letters emerge, reportedly written by bowe bergdahl during captivity. the reporter that got the exclusive story joins us to talk about what is in the letters. research says we are more polarized as a country, and that's influencing where we decide to live. what do you think? join the conversation on twitter, facebook and google+.

i've ever done, even though i can't see. techknow. we're here in the vortex. only on al jazeera america.

with news that former u.s. sergeant bowe bergdahl is flown from germany to a u.s. military base in san antonio texas come from two letters, believed to be from bowe bergdahl, sent while he was captive by the taliban, casting light on his state of mind before walking off his post in 2009 and becoming a prisoner. they were written in 2012 and 2013 and are quoted in a "the daily beast" exclusive. one has him in the u.s. government to make sure they have the facts before judging him for leaving the base. leadership was lacking if non-existent:

the misspellings there from bowe bergdahl's. for the first time since christmas u.s. drones struck targets in northern waziristan. two attacks in 24 hours hit buildings and a truck packed with explosives, belonging to the network that held bowe bergdahl. i'm joined by kimberley doser, contributing writer for "the daily beast," and veteran writer writing the exclusive "on the bowe bergdahl letters." you mention, as is obvious to anybody, that the handwriting does not match. bowe bergdahl's family believe they were written by him. >> officials and saw the letters doubted they were the real thing until they met with the family and the family said there were things in there that only bowe would include.

in one he signs at the end with an animal paw print. that's bowe. and "the washington post" obtained a journal of his writings that he mailed before he is disappeared from his base, and the tone of the letters matches the writing in those journals. >> the tone in the first letter, which is the longer one is really just a rambling missive that goes on about god and other things and at times in an incomprehensible way. >> you have to remember soldiers are trained before going into combat. if they are taken captive that they are not supposed to write about much this is personal. they don't want to give anything to the enemy. was this bowe bergdahl's way of interpreting that? somehow communicating to his parents that he was there and still okay, but he wasn't talking about anything personal. i read the letters from the berg

dals to their son and we are not publishing those. it's a philosophical family, the mother and father talk about those issues. the letters are rife with misspellings. is this something that you think might lend sort of credence to his state of mind when he did leave the base. aside from what he wrote in the letters specifically about that, just that the whole mental state of this man. >> bowe was home schooled and misspellings are in a lot of his writings that we know are his. we have heard from u.s. officials about the conditions under which he is saying he was held captive, held in a cage, hooded after the two escape attempts. we haven't been able to verify

that. one official told me they did build a cage. they moved around a lot between cages and basements to avoid u.s. drone strikes, ci counterterrorist operations and to keep him away from parts of the taliban, who didn't want to trade him. they wanted to kill him. bowe bergdahl was critical saying officers were not concerned with the safety, saying the situation was going from bad into a night ware. he was aware that questions were raised already about why he left the base? >> that was backed up into his disappearance. the army noted there were problems. two leaders had to be friday. that said u.s. defense officials said it didn't justify walking off the base.

you're a u.s. soldier, you follow orders even they you don't have faith ordering people into the fight. that said. the defense officials said they also agree with bowe. let's wait until the investigation proceeds after he meets with his family, finishes the debrief and then they ask him "why did you leave?" you wrote a story about the exchange and how president obama faced an excruciating choice whether to swap the five taliban leaders for bowe bergdahl. here is how chuck hagel described it in frost the senate committee. >> all these decisions are a part of brutal reality that we deal with with law. >> the haqqani network and friends in the taliban of the haqqani network were debating

what to do with bowe bergdahl. >> what sources in pakistan tells us going on is the haqqani network was keeping him, and safe, from other parts of the taliban that wanted him dead. the longer the negotiations dragged on, the more that strengthened the hand of the parts of the taliban that didn't see a pointed to keeping him alive. they wanted to exploit the propaganda of killing an american soldier in captivity. that's a message the qataris passed on saying "your time is running ou." while chuck hagel had an estimate from his own intelligence officials, and across the intelligence arena that four of the five taliban fighters would probably return to the fight in afghanistan, he had to fight it against the threat against bowe bergdahl's life and as official told me, we decided that we could watch them well enough for a year in qatar,

and once in afghanistan we had other means to deal with them. they are concerned that four of the five could go back and write. the internet is abuzz about how bad some of these guys were. >> you know, yes, the four of them could rejoin the fight but thing about it. they have been out of the fight since 2002. they don't know what's happened on the ground. they don't know how methods have moved on, personalities have changed, methods of fighting have changed. in the argument for releasing them, is the argument that, you know, they are outdated. but on the other side of it, it was a propaganda victory for the taliban to get them out. that is what you have u.s. officials weighing back and forth. you let them go, which helps the taliban and strengthened the military wing which has been arguing against negotiating.

think about the picture of an american soldier killed in captivity. that's what the obama administration is facing. so many questions, i expect we'll have more as the days go on. thank you very much much pleasure to have you. turning to the politics of polarization at home. if you wonder why nothing gets done, there are more hard core political party sans and fewer americans with views crossing party lines than at any time in the past decade. 10 years ago 10% held liberal or conservative views. that doubled. the animosity has gotten so bad that more than a quarter believe republican policies are a threat to nation. better than a third of syria's republic conservatives think democratic policies are a threat. i'm joined by the washington

bureau chief, the author of a story about how democrats in the state of wisconsin live in different words. your story looked at the decades of attitudes and voting patterns and found that this polarization politically increased remarkably, especially in the past couple of decades. 20 years ago, 16% of committed democrats had an unfavourable view of republicans. that has more than doubled. like wise in 1994, 17% of republicans had unfavourable reviews of democrats. how do you explain the change. >> there's a lot of related and different thinks happening. as pew notes you have a coherent right and left that has been forming in the electorate. you have fewer voters cross-pressured in the middle. you have ideological lines lining up with the partisan

division. you have conservatives amappedoning the democratic party and liberals abandoning the republican party, and the geography, which we looked at closely in milwaukee and other areas where people are living in politically lopsided enclaves, very red or blue neighbourhoods. they fuel each other, and then at the same time you have the most partisan and ideological voters being the ones involved in the process, which also, i think, fuels the divisions. they are the ones with a bigger impact on politics. people in the middle, that are mixed and contradictory in their views are not participating to the same degree. people in the center were less involved. as you talked about the geographical divide, according to the pew study many americans

wanted to spend their lives in political asylums, a third of those polled wanted to live where many shared their views. no wonder part sans feel like they are living in different worlds, they do. >> the two parties effect draw their support from a different demographic group and different communities, different regions in the country, one part of the democratic party is an urban party and a republican party with no urban foothold. you see how when you draw your support from different neighbourhoods and communities, how that feeds the fundamental divisions and reinforces different world views that people have. >> talking about the communities, a finding that was interesting is that 77% of

committed liberals preferred walkable communities with small houses, while three-quarters of conservatives wanted bigger homes and communities where schools and amenities were further apart. liberals tend to be found in big city, and conservatives are out in the country, that makes me wonder, what came first, the chicken or the egg. did liberals go to cities because that's where they wanted to live. or was it vice versa. >> that's a hot question. in the area that we studied. you have inner suburbs which used to be republican bastians, where you found upscale probusiness republicans, and now these places have become increasingly democratic and you have working class inner suburbs that went from being reliably democratic to republican, you have class differences there, and i think that goes with the neighbourhood preferences. it's not people moving and

self-segregating, it's the kinds of people who - people who may not have moved or relocated, but they are responding to the shifting - the way the parties redefine themselves and the changing ideological lines. >> let's go to washington. we used to have rockefeller republicans, and blue dog democrats and now they are endangered species. >> the overlap between democrats in congress disappeared over time. another way to look at it is you used to say, application, find that a republican in wisconsin was different to a republican in georgia, and a democrat in new york was different to a democrat in arizona. parties are nationalized where regional differences have disappeared and voters are responding much more easily to what it means to be a republican or a democrat. there's less confusion on the part of voters. some say this is the by-product

of knowledgeable voters, and less confusion about what it means to be a democrat or republican. a result is that these geographically more conservative parts of the country are uniformly republican, and more liberal are uniformly democratic. you have regional differences on top of everything else. >> making compromise difficult. it's a fascinating study, and so is your article where you note that milwaukee is a polarized part in a polarized state in a pallarized nation. thank you. straight ahead, a strong case for dads doing the laundry and other chores. how it can make a difference for their daughters? forget the superstition, friday the 13th may be the best day to travel. and tv networks want to keep you inside with their shows.

>> i'm not sure why you didn't learn from your last incarceration >> some prisoners try to get it right >> i'm trying to go to school and get a nice job >> you're only 22, you can turn this around... >> and some just don't >> he actually told people in the halfway house, that he was amazed that they had given him parole >> the system with joe burlinger only on al jazeera america

dads, if you want your daughters to have successful high-powered career you might want to start doing the laundry. as fathers day nears, a predictor of a gir's career ambitious is not her job but how much father's help around the house. joining us is a professor in

psychology, alissa conducted a study, the second shift - do parent gender roles at home predict children's aspirations and it was published online. conventional wisdom says a mother with a high-powered career would be the best way to learn to defy stereotypes. your research shows that is not the case. >> not necessarily. there are other studies and other past research that supports that idea that mothers with high powered careers have daughters that aspire to high-powered careers. the degree to which fathers help out around the house, engaging in the childcare, cooking and cleaning - those fathers are likely to have daughters who aspire to non-traditional careers. >> why do you think it happens, why seeing fathers doing the chores does it make a

difference? >> it's a great question. data can't speak to that question, we don't want to infer too much from the correlational findings. a possibility is that fathers are modelling what they expect from women in general, and what they expect from the girl's mothers specifically. and that that is what is getting interpreted or signalled to girls about what they should do with their own lives. >> modelling is a big part of it. >> you found that it doesn't matter if fathers endorse gender equality, if rolls at home - girls will condition themselves, nurses, librarians, it's actions speak louder than words. >> it is, yes. >> what we found is that if girl's are receiving contradictory messages between - fathers may publicly endorse

gender roles. they are not engaging in the behaviours. the behaviour comes through as a strong message rather than what they publicly endorse. >> no. >> there are consequences. >> absolutely not. >> there's no question that you are not doing that. you are showing how their career aspirations change. a significant part of the wage grab between men and women is because they tend to go into careers that pay less. >> that's true. we are not trying to diminish the amazing contribution of careers that are dominated by women, nurses, teachers, librarians, they are superimportant careers. stay at home mums, the hardest job. what we are talking about is the potential to move barriers, cop

straining the choices that women are making that they may not be aware of. gender at home is constraining gender equality at work. for some reason it has little effect on boys. >> right. yes. in our data we found that parent believed behaviours didn't necessarily seem to predict what boys say they want to be when they grow up. a reason for that may be in mois in the study, boys and men generally, the gender roles that govern the behaviour of men and boys are more rigid than those that govern women's behaviour. part of this larger societal question is whether we are sending the same signals to boys as to girls, that you can be what you want to be. options are endless, and we may not send the same signals to boys. >> what you looked at is what the girls aspired to in the

future. do you have an indication that it does play out later in career choices. do current c.e.o. women have fathers that were more hands on at home? >> that's a great question. that is something we can test in future research. i think, you know, for the current study, what this tells us is we are using the career aspirations of young girls as a proxy for the degree to which they internalize gender role norms and the believes about gender roles and stereotypes, how they become a part of their own identities. >> it's thought provoking. a pleasure to have you with us. >> thank you for having me. >> mourning a legend of the stage and screen. first a rare double dose of fear and superstation. a full moon on friday the 13th,

why we think it's unlucky. next on data dive. we take on one of the most powerful forces on the globe >> a battle for the very soul of this state, but is time running out? >> it's a wholesale effort to buy government... fault lines al jazeera america's >> ground breaking... >> we have to get out of here... award winning investigative documentary series wisconsin's mining standoff on al jazeera america

today's data dive gets superstitious. the end of the week marks friday the 13th. the on one this year. it will coincide with a full moon. the double dose of dread for the superstitious. it hasn't happened in 14 years. a fear of friday had biblical origins because of jesus's tom c fiction. in the late 14th century it was written in the canterbury tales "and on a friday fell the mischance", as for the number 13, the bible has something to do with it. jesus and the 12 apostles sat together at the last supper.

12 is seen as chronologically complete, 12 months in a year, 12 hours on a clock, 13 seems odd and incomplete. that supervision is widespread that many hotels and buildings don't include a 13th floor. friday the 13th is unlucky. it's a new phenomena. there were references in the l.a. time or new york times. the friday the 13th films didn't hurt bringing a burst of fear. there are two terms:. >> some superstitious world leaders made decisions based on the fear. a prime minister in singapore resigned in august of 2004 to take over the central bank, but made sure the transfer of power happened on thursday, the 12th. the travel industry takes an 8 to 900 million hit.

so many refuse to fly on that day. air fares are discounted due to the fears. it may not be a bad day to travel. summer time tv used to be a graveyard for reruns. why are networks spending millions to start up new shows. >> >> these protestors have decided that today they will be arrested >> these people have chased a president from power, they've torn down a state... >> what's clear is that people

don't just need protection, they need assistance.

real reporting from around the world. this is what we do. al jazeera america. if you thought you were caught up on tv viewing this

summer, you may want to grab a seat on the couch the the summer season is underway with splashy shows with big stars like halle berry, and others. shows never scheduled sa years ago. why the change? >> we ask bill wyman. a cultural critic. good to see you. summer was a time for re-run, it was deadly when it came to watching television. networks are spending millions to crank out now series. kids go to camp of the the parents go away and don't watch much tv. >> it's true. the answer is that television programming used to be a game of shoots and ladders, that you went through the board. sometimes you had a big hit, sometimes a big flop. now they are playing three-dimensional chess and they have opponents on every side in complicated fashions, whether on

the internet or their opponents, other networks or the new-fangled cable networks doing better programming and they don't know which way to turn. cyclicly every few years they say, "no one watches tv during the summer, but let's throw something on the wall and see what sticks", every five years or so they try it and there's a hit, like "under the dome", and everyone is on the bandwagon and hitting us with shows. >> the cable networks pay and free and basic cable led the way. >> this goes back 10 years. fox went all in on summer 10 or 12 years ago. what everyone forgets is all the shows they put up flopped. so it doesn't always happen. a.b.c. went all in four or five years ago "casino", "the

jury", "north shore", it flops. we may never hear them again or there could be a big one. >> we have a big one with halle berry and steven spiel berg producing "xt tent." >> this is a big money gamble by big names. we'll see if it works. stein spielberg - he doesn't have a great hit streak on television. with "terranova" and "smash." >> i loved them both. we have "mistresses" on a.b.c., that aired last year, and you mentioned "under the dome", a big success for c.b.s. that is coming up. let's talk about basic cable. there's a lot of shows including "clive owen and the quick", that

will be awesome from soweder berg. it's a doctor working out of the nicker booker hotel when people are learning about things like anes thesia. again, a big-budget thing and you have a bunch of other shows that are returning, becoming summer shows with success. it really has become a year-round scripted series because for a while it was reality shows. we'll have those. we have america has talent and big brother. >> and celebrity wife swap on australia. >> not a favourite show. >> one thing they are looking out for is n.b.c. has gone through the ringer. it was the classiest network when it came to scripted shows and drama. they stuck with shows like the office for a long time. there's a show -- the nit shift,

a -- night shift, a medical drama. it has meade ochre reviews. and another is amy pollard's brother has a comity show about a -- comedy show about a guy marrying someone from sweden. we'll see if n.b.c. can get its moo back. >> we have to speak about ruby d, kennedy center honorary, she had a grammy and emmy and passed away. in 2008, as denzel washington's mother in "american gangster", with her husband, aussie davis, she won life-time achievement awards from the national civil rights museum. she was a star on so many kifferent levels. not in front of an audience, but as a civil rites act visit giving a stirring speech at a

march on washington before martin luther king's "i have a dream" speech. it's a remarkable centuriary. this is someone in her teens when the depression hit. so men of her friend she saw cut down in the prime of their life. with aussie davis, they were a team together, outspoken and she did all the indelible performances, "raisin in the sun", and the "jackie robinson story." across the border, a talented woman. it's a big lose. >> a trail blazer. >> light will be dimmed in her honour. good to have you with us. >> that's all for now. coming up friday an update on the afghan elections and we'll talk world cup with dave z. >> ren.

conversation continues on the website. aljazeera.com/considerthis. facebook, google+ or twitter - see you next time. hi everyone. this is al jazeera america. i'm john seigenthaler in new york. you are watching the only live nasal news cast at this -- live national news cast at this hour. rebels battle iraqi troops for control of the country. not the real thing, the supreme court weighs in on a supermarket show down. fruit juice labels may never b