>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> we begin with iraq. president obama authorized airstrikes targeting isis militants on thursday. they're the first of direct u.s.

military involvement in iraq since 2011. he expressed concerns about renewed intervention. >> i will not allow the united states to be dragged into another war in iraq. even as we support iraqis as they take the fight to the terrorists, american combat troops will not be returning to fight with iraq. there is no american military solution to the larger crisis in iraq. >> isis militants have taken several cities and are approaching erbil in iraq. john kerry said their actions are a wake-up call. >> this campaign of terror against the innocent, including the yazidi and christian minorities, targeted acts of violence, show all the warning signs of genocide. >> two writers for "the new yorker," dexter filkins and george packer. i am pleased to have both of them here at this table.

dexter, what is the risk, here? >> i guess it depends on where you stand. i think the white house sees the risk as getting pulled in to something that they can't get out of. that is why last night the president spent most of his discussion saying, this is a very limited action, it will not go on forever. we are not getting into another war. i guess that is the danger. i think the real danger is something larger than that. it is what the president is facing, which is isis, this growing, metastasizing, very strong and virulent group now spanning two countries, occupying space wherever they go. they're disciplined, good at

what they do. at some point we have to deal with that, if only because there are hundreds of fighters who have american and european passports and they're going to be coming home someday. >> they also have money and weapons. >> yeah, when they went into mozul they looted the bank. they got tens of millions of dollars, i most accounts. by most accounts. they got all the american military equipment we provided for the iraqi army. tens of thousands of iraqi soldiers and police disappeared, deserted, left everything behind. >> should they have done something earlier? >> well, yeah. sure. but i think the central question that always comes up when you make a decision like this is,

look, there is catastrophe in every part of the world, why are we going into this one? if we are going to ignore all these other places that are also imploding. why are we going back into iraq? the president mentioned -- used the word "genocide." that is as good as any. isis has shown us what they can do and i think it is a good bet that they will make good on their promises. >> what do they say -- they say they had no choice, they hope they can make this a limited intervention. how far they prepared to go? >> a really good question. i think we're going to see -- what they have done so far is we have done a couple of airstrikes outside erbil, to stop isis for moving into the capital. they haven't done any airstrikes yet against isis at the, bottom of mount sinjar.

i asked, are you going to leave them up there? they said, no, we -- by doing these airstrikes, we will give the kurdish army, we will give them some breathing space and they will start to push back. they will do the stuff on their own. he also says the iraqi army would do the same, which i think is wishful thinking. i don't think the iraqi army will be going back to any of these places for many years, they don't have the cohesion. >> what is the attitude of the american army if they wanted to help? >> i think they are extremely wary and they don't want to get complicated with the iranians. the problem here is that the iranian influence in the shiite part of iraq has been so strong and so overweaning -- that is why we are here. you ask, who did the sunnis

really support, do they support isis? where do they stand? their antipathy towards maliki and the shiite government is so strong that they are willing to support isis. that is how much they hate the government in baghdad. >> you ask -- could we have done something sooner? of course. we hung onto the central government in baghdad for much too long. >> we would have done more once i changed the government. >> which would be when? you can look back and say, why didn't we just cut our losses and say we have to start arming the kurds, because they are the only force on the ground that can fight isis, instead we kept saying we are waiting for new government. and everyone keeps underestimating isis. we have underestimated them,

maliki underestimated them when he refused to send an iraqi army units. the kurds have underestimated them by not seeing that they were going to end up having to fight them. >> intelligence analysts were supposed to be able to assess. >> we don't have much intelligence and there is something about isis and groups like that -- people don't have an immediate grasp of the depth of evil when confronted with a group like isis, their resolve. >> assume that people do have that assessment. where is everybody else? >> great question. we were just talking about that today. why is it that the united states, which is accused of being the world's policeman and doesn't want to be the world's policeman, is once again the world's policeman? that is the question. >> we have to make a decision. reluctantly. understanding, the possibility of genocide was there.

where is the threat erbil? it seems to be the trigger in the airstrike. we cannot let kurdistan be overrun. >> to answer your question, remember libya -- they couldn't do it. they don't have it. they don't have the stuff. >> they can support it. the president believes, multilateral action -- not just the united states, we are leading it -- who will help? america will help. america would like to have other people support its help. >> like turkey, who has a major interest in this. i think the world -- europe has

been riveted to gaza. this happened is a sideshow. what is really happening? it was a nonevent for days while they were on the mountain and suddenly it oeste and a consciousness. to his credit, the president realized he had to act immediately. >> everybody knows what happens when you intervene in iraq. it is a nightmare. >> no one knows that better than president obama. you could see it in his body language last night. >> where is the opposition? >> i think 2003 on several buddy and anyone who was for the war in 2003 should be very humble about cheering on another military intervention in iraq, and everyone else's reluctance. we are all stuck it in a political paralysis.

>> we face a situation in 2003. >> genocide, a local force willing to fight the kurds. the fact that airstrikes can actually -- >> it is also true that we -- obama made it clear, we are not going to do very much. why not do more? >> military air power. is there risk, i'll walked -- >> it is like iraq. in 2003, when you tear something down, what is going to go in its place? all this started in syria. the serial war has been going on for 3.5 years. has been going on

for 3.5 years. >> will the kurds back up whatever we do, in terms of getting people back to sinjar and re-creating the condition of life there? once you have taken that isis, you allow the kurds to get back into sinjar. how involved do we get? what happens when civilians died because of airstrikes? >> do you think the will exists to stop isis? from advancing to baghdad, advancing to erbil, creating a much larger caliphate for themselves? >> we might get a that point pretty soon. my understanding is -- isis is very quietly moving in all around baghdad, they have cut off a lot of the roads and are very close to the airport. what happens if they shoot a rocket? no airplanes will land or take off. you got one highway going in and out. they are very close to making that city unlivable. >> they control the electricity, the water supply, they can flood the major cities. if this isn't enough to spur us at least to realize that this is no longer -- we tolerated isis because they weren't attacking us.

the war was going on there. it feels like an army rather than an al qaeda like global jihad. what makes us think they will be satisfied? >> answer your own question. >> i think we're going to get pulled into fighting isis. >> on the other side of the border, in syria, where we have been quietly over the last couple of months -- a lot of the more moderate opposition are getting more sophisticated weapons. >> that is part of almost a group effort. the u.s. is doing it, but other countries are stepping up. >> part of the problem -- >> directing it to different groups. >> part of the reason why isis is so strong is because people were funding all these countries, funding anyone who wanted to fight assad. it went to the crazies -- isis.

that means they got everything they need. >> this is a bad situation. therefore, the president is making one decision after another as to how to ramp it up. >> it is against every foreign policy preference instinct. you can sense how reluctant he is to do anything. iraq was a country he was getting out of. we were going to pivot to asia and now we are editing to minimal problems, sinjar. >> pivoting back. >> right now, as we speak, the lebanese army is fighting isis in lebanon. this is something which stretches across the entire middle east. >> before we leave, i want to know what the president's options are. >> what they want to happen is, first, they want to get rid of maliki. they want to a new prime

minister. >> this emergency has overtaken that. >> i think the dream, and i think increasingly, it is something receding on the horizon. they can still hold the iraqi state together. that will spur people to fight in spur people to rally around the government, but until they do that-- >> i would advise to at least think of accelerating the time table of kurdish independence, because the kurds are our only reliable friends and they are the front lines with isis. they are the people that can fight them. >> accelerate the recognition and support. >> yeah. weapons now and independence faster than we might have wanted. >> with george's point -- the kurdish region has a 600 mile border with isis and 50 miles with iraq. that is the front line, all the way up and down.

>> allow them to sell their oil. >> it is pretty hard for the kurds. they are our best friends. >> thank you. i assume you guys will be there in the next week. back in a moment, stay with us. ♪ >> two american health care professionals working in africa have contracted ebola and are being treated with an experimental drug. there is much we do not know about how to combat this disease and what resources will be needed to fight it. one person who does know is dr. jim kim. he joins us from washington to talk about that. he is currently president of the world bank, he is also the founder of partners in health. the nonprofit has an impressive track record of fighting infectious disease. want to talk about the world bank. let me begin there. what do you hope to accomplish and what do you see containing the crisis at this moment? >> i have been talking with dr.

margaret chan, director of the world health organization. she tells me things are getting better. she tells me the worst part of the crisis can be brought under control. we can extinguish it in three to six months. what we need right now is immediate inputs. out of the $200 million, $75 million will go to immediate -- right now, many of the health workers are just leaving. they are not getting paid well and the governments don't have the funds. this immediate infusion of cash from the world bank is going to help with the immediate response. what she also told me is that on the ground, they need everything. they need mobile laboratories, mobile clinics, protective gear. there has been a lot of talk of helping, but what we hear from her and from others on the

ground, is that the countries that have pledged need to step up and step up quickly. this is something that we can get under control. this is not an airborne infectious disease. we haves, for example. to move and move quickly, but if we do, we think we can get it under control. >> this is the worst example of ebola in history. >> it is. about 1000 cases. that spread from one country to another. it is the worst epidemic in history, but as an infectious disease doctor, i have dealt with tuberculosis -- i was at the world health organization, helping to run a transition to a new director general at the end of the sars epidemic. this is different. if we move quickly, if we get all the technology, all the supportive care -- doctors and nurses, if we get them in place, we can shut this down, but we have to move and we have to move despite the fact there is fear. the fear cannot slow us down.

we know what to do. if we have big equipment we can make progress. >> you think the organization -- the collaboration and coordination -- is in place to be able to move quickly? >> everyone has to understand that it is the leaders. you have three leaders of these countries who are well known for being champions of fighting corruption and champions of good governance. we have good leadership in these countries. everyone has to work with world health organization. during the sars epidemic, who played a critical role. they have to play critical role this time as well. margaret chan was in charge of the sars response in hong kong. she knows exactly what to do. right now there's a little bit too much freelancing. we want everyone to follow the

lead of heads of state. if we fall into order, if we get things in place, this will be brought to an end much more quickly. >> it was margaret chan who said that the outbreak was moving efforts to control it. >> and part of it is because they don't have what they need on the ground. what you just told me was that promises of mobile clinics, of mobile laboratories, of protective equipment, of basic materials like intravenous fluids to provide supportive care, the ability to reach out and communicate and bring people into the clinics, those things have not been put in place. it is less an indication of the speed of transmission than it is of the slowness of the global response. we need to step up our response right now. >> how long will it take? >> weeks.

we can slow the spread of it and really get things under control in weeks, and the hope is we can in three to six months. >> then there is the story of the two americans who have been airlifted to atlanta. they are evidently being treated with a new, experimental serum. can you tell me about that? >> it is called zmapp. i don't have access to the data. isunderstanding is that it three different antibodies that have an effect on the cells that the virus attacks. we have heard very anecdotal reports that the patients have gotten better. but the treatment for ebola, the accepted treatment, is supportive treatment. the reason people with ebola die is because of multiple organ failure. what we have seen, even in

africa, there is one hospital in guinea that reported when patients come in early and received effective supportive treatment early, the mortality rate has been much lower. we have seen that in previous epidemics. the quicker patients get to health services, they get better at a much higher rate than the 90% rates of mortality that have been reported from some areas. that is the key. the message we want to send is if there is suspicion, people in those countries have to get to health-care services as quickly as possible. their chances of survival are higher. coming to the united states, they are getting the best quality treatment. one of the organs that can fail is the kidney. the fact that they have access to dialysis is very important. >> why do the organs fail? >> the virus itself attacks very

specific cells, epithelial cells. if the cells are being attacked, is to slow down the flow of blood can cause the organs to fail. this is a systemic disease. you have a situation of sepsis, which is a generalized, overwhelming infection. in conditions of sepsis, if it is due to a bacteria for which we have an antibiotic, you give them the antibiotic, fluid, other supportive care. in this case, we don't have any but we can do everything else. those things we really need to do. we don't have a proven, direct treatment for this virus. >> how is it that health-care workers get it? i am familiar with an operating room, or and i know there is a but what happens

when health-care workers become contaminated? >> the key here is that you need to use full, protective gear. the gown, the coverings, you don't want a splash from the blood to get into your eye, which would put you at very high risk. my understanding is that these physicians and health-care workers are heroically caring for these patients without effective protective gear. this is really a terrible shame, that people are getting infected for lack of fairly simple technology. this is just the appropriate covering. as long as you know that someone has ebola or you have a high suspicion for it and you where the appropriate protective gear, we can stop the transmission to health care workers. this is why it is so important for every country and organization that has made promises to provide these kinds

of materials, has to do it right now. we don't have enough equipment on the ground to respond. the dangers areit as we look at it today and where the good news is. >> when there is an acute problem, our attention is brought to the issue, we see all these things that we have to improve, and when the acute problem goes away, the interest goes away. we were very focused on bird flu for a while, and we talked about things like building the capacity to make vaccines. then with the evaporation of bird flu as an issue, we stopped talking about it. here is the point. these kinds of episodes have to remind us of what we need to do. in the case of ebola, what we need to do is to build a functioning public health systems on the ground. these things are not that

expensive. we are talking about functioning public health systems. half of the 200 million is going to go into building public health systems that can do basic public health diagnosis and communication that can provide protective gear, so we can stop these kinds of epidemics much earlier. if we had those functioning health care systems, it wouldn't have happened. these three countries -- it is terrible, the economic impact is real. in liberia, 80% of the people of liberia are living in extreme poverty. in sierra leone, 50%. in guinea, 40%. these are poor countries. sierra leone and liberia are just emerging from terrible, decade-long wars. these are countries that could ill afford to have these kinds of crises. among all the things they were trying to build back, we didn't

focus enough -- i think all of us in the global health community share some responsibility. we should have focused more. they have been asking for help to build back all kinds of systems. we weren't quick enough and this is what happened. we need to take this opportunity to completely commit ourselves to building those systems. we have taken a major first step in doing that. >> with respect to the united states, because many people will be seeing this program from within the united states, there is always a question that arises -- is it likely to come to the united states? and even though you are infected with it, you won't necessarily recognize it. you could get on a plane and go to another country before you became aware. >> if this was an airborne infectious disease, we would

have to put you into a room. in this case, all we need to do is close the door and make sure the infectious precautions are put on, all the health workers coming in and on how the gloves and gown. we can prevent the spread. in the united states, there are so many very well-functioning systems -- we would get it under control very quickly. the concern i have is that all of this panic about ebola is slowing down our ability to respond in these three countries. when you are here and interviewing the heads of state, charlie, the point they are making is that this is a humanitarian problem that happened to happen in africa. this is three countries out of 54. what we are hearing is that people are generalizing and saying all people in africa have ebola. people are canceling vacation plans to go to south africa. let's be very, very clear. it is in these three countries. we are hoping it doesn't spread but we have to be hypervigilant to make sure.

the rest of africa, not only is it open for business, but we just had a meeting here in the united states and which the africans demonstrated to the entire u.s. community that was present, some of the most important business leaders in this country, that they are making progress in governance, their debt to gdp ratios are under control, they want to do business with the united states. it would be a shame that countries as far away as south africa would have to suffer because of our lack of ability to understand geography. these are three small countries in west africa, not the whole of africa. >> this is a time that the world is looking at africa with promise and with hope, believing that what happened in washington

could be a game changer in terms of perceptions as well as deeds. >> let's take one example. liberia has about 4 million people. on any given day, liberia has access to the amount of electricity that texas stadium uses for dallas cowboys. you cannot build an economy with that kind of electrical supply. sub-saharan africa has 80 gigawatts of installed capacity, which is about as much as spain. we have over 5% growth in africa during the financial crisis. africa, in many ways, contributed to keeping global growth anywhere near above zero, because they had done so many things well. i think president obama, doing something that is so unique -- this is the first time in history that all the african leaders have been invited to washington.

in participating in this meeting, i think what happened was that business leaders in the united states were extremely impressed at what they learned. you have over 5% growth, while almost three quarters of africa is still do not have access to electricity. one of the most successful african said, all that without access to energy. we made a $5 billion commitment to support president obama's initiative to power africa. something like $20 billion or more went on the table to increase electrical supply. we hope interest in investing, and making partnerships, will really grow as a result of this meeting, because africa is becoming one of the most dynamic growth centers. six of the 10 fastest-growing

economies are in africa. >> this other point was made clearly to me -- it is also necessary to appreciate the situation. in order to achieve these kinds of goals, there needs to be in the minimization of the threat to security. >> charlie, the secretary-general of the united nations and i have been traveling together specifically to the places where the conflict is the most severe. we first went to the great lakes region, visited democratic republic of congo. we went to mali, where the conflict was just slowing down. soon we will be going to the corner of africa. the horn of africa. we work in all the conflict zones around the world, the middle east, everywhere. in africa, our strong sense is that a huge part of the lack of security, the huge part of the

conflict, is related to lack of development. what the secretary-general and i are trying to do, is instead of waiting for the peace treaties to be signed and then going and afterwards to try to spur economic growth, we are going in together. we are putting on the table billions of dollars for regional projects, to make people understand that trade will be a lot more effective in decreasing conflict than continuing to have what are sometimes ridiculously high tariffs across the border. we are trying to make the case that investing now in economic growth and facilitated trade across this region that have a huge impact on reducing conflict. we think that in africa specifically, these are far less often ideological conflicts and more often conflicts around access to basic resources. >> thank you so much, it is a pleasure to have you on this program. i hope we can see you again soon. >> thank you. >> dr. jim kim is president of the world bank and a highly

respected global health expert. back in a moment, stay with us. ♪

>> tim finchem is here. he was commissioner of the pga tour for 20 years.

the profile has grown significantly. he successfully navigated the treacherous period for professional golf. i am pleased to have been here at this table for the first time. you and i did a program together in 1984. >> 30 years ago. the campaign situation. >> tell me about -- you took over. they seem to have the good fortune of having somebody ready to step into the footsteps of somebody who really put the sport in great financial shape and great marketing. >> i think the sports that i've been most successful have a long

tenure for leaders. it allows maturity to develop. a lot of options for succession. relationships are key in sports and sports marketing. they are smart guys. they built a really strong organization. when it was time to go, they had a smooth transition. they have got people that have been there 15, 20 years who can step in. the professional game is growing. it has been on a long, steady growth. if you go back the last 35 years, constant growth, almost without exception, even with the downturns and recessions. that is a result of growth of the game, generally.

more and more companies become aware of the uniqueness of our product from the standpoint of business and business opportunities, advertising, the strength of our audience. recently, the international situation -- war and more companies we deal with our global companies. the game is growing globally. in asia, leading the way, but also south america, eastern europe, places in africa. candidly, if you look at all of the now olympic sports, i would argue that there are only four or five that are truly global and professional at the same time, organize globally. >> going into the 2016 games?

>> most of them are pretty good on two continents or so, but golf is one of those sports that is on every continent and growing on every continent. >> you had a lot to do with getting golf this year into the olympics. was that a hard sell? >> actually, it was the reverse. we had significant reluctance about going into the olympics. >> they wanted you and you weren't sure? >> he came after us -- we looked at tennis, tennis was in the olympics, major championships, not getting all the top players -- but what happened was, we finally came to the recognition that growth outside the united states is really important. more league players need to come from other places in the world. they need to get stronger.

85 countries invest money directly into sports, but only if they are on the olympic program. we turned it around and went to the olympics and said, we would like to become part of the olympics, we will see how it works out. we have a few challenges in rio, we are building the golf course. >> there only two golf courses in rio. >> the olympics had two choices to vote on, chicago and rio. chicago has 200 golf courses, more than any city in the world. 30 or 40 of which we could play by showing up the week before. now we have rio. we have to build a golf course. >> help me understand the help of the board. you read stories that americans are not playing as much golf, that courses are being built and sold back to developers. >> some of that is true. like with anything in today's world, you see a story and you

have to get it in the right perspective. the united states has literally half the golfers on the planet. the majority of the top, elite players. in 1960, when arnold palmer went and was on cbs television, there were 5 million golfers. there are now 30 million golfers. if you look at a trendline from 1960 when golf hit television with arnold palmer, a perfect storm, it is a constant this way. until he had the financial crisis -- that stultified a few things. people were scared about their future, so you have a lot of

private clubs dealing with older members who weren't playing that much, didn't want to spend dues. private clubs took a pretty good hit in those years, but they have largely come back from that. in addition, the housing industry really screeched to almost a halt. if you go back to 1960, housing helps drive golf because so many housing developments were built around golf facilities. you have got to take the game to the folks, the folks aren't going to come find the game. the game is got to get out there. if you go back to the 70's and 80's, a lot of those facilities were being in conjunction with housing. when housing took a dip, it backed off. most of what you read about has to do with rounds of golf. it is true.

i think the digital age, people traveling all the time, the business person, the employed person, the man or woman who has got a job, is finding it tougher to take time to play the games. rounds have come down. but they seem to have steadied. the other challenge that we all look at is youth. young people today, and you see this in data related to obesity and regards to the number of kids that are moving their

bodies, they are in front of screens. it is tougher to get their attention. having said all that, the good news is that we are continuing to see a pretty good influx of young people. the first tee program is an example. it was designed and started in 1997, to take golf to kids who historically have not had access to it. it was designed to bring kids into the game over time, and also deal with a diversity problem we have. we have a tough time reaching minority kids, because they don't have the accessible facilities that you have got to have to get into the game. >> other sports are so accessible because they are street sports. >> street sports, small ball fields. a golf course costs -- even if it is three holes and the driving range -- we set out to build a bunch of those facilities. a couple years later we added to it an adjunct program in schools where we take a golf like program to k-6. that program is an 8000 schools. the two rogue rims together reached 3.5 million kids. we are seeing kids respond -- i

will never forget the visual of my head -- we opened at pebble beach, went out and bought a nine hole facility. we went out there to open it up, there were 350 kids in crisp white t-shirts, lined up to take advantage of the first time they had ever had an opportunity to get into golf. we know the interest is there and we know it is at a level that the kids will take the time. you still have to get the game to them. it is an ongoing problem but we feel good about it. >> here's a hypothetical. the masters. you've got the final four. tiger and phil. ratings will be up by about 10%, 15%? >> tiger being in the tournament drives the rating. if he is making a cut and is there on the weekend, he is unique in the sport, like palmer.

people want to watch him whether he's winning or losing just because they love to watch them. he has won 78 times. 30 years of doing that, which now is almost 20, people like watching tiger -- he is mythical. it increases. remember when tiger won the open by 15 shots, everybody said, it is a runaway. morgan wins the open by eight or nine shots. tiger wins by 15 shots and they don't care. i walked within that day. >> he was a master class.

>> he is in a different league, but with the current -- social media and watching players, these guys developing their own cadre of fans-- >> you have any guesses as to who will go in 2018? >> now that he won five last year, he is in a great position to beat snead's record. you only get four shots a year. he is 38. he would not want to hear me say this, but i worry about that. he has got it in him. he beat five great fields last year. he hits the stick and had he missed the stick, he would've won the tournament. we will see, but the great thing about it --

>> time is marching on. >> when he got down and started going down this path, won the masters in 1997, four in a row in 2001, the media was really hyping it. it was delightful because to win 18 measures it takes a career. you cannot do it in 15 years. it has been great because that means the infatuation within will go for a long time. i told him once i thought he would break jack snead's record. >> who is the best ballstriker on the tour? >> it's interesting. i hear and watch a lot of golf, and i see the commentators

talking about it. if you walk up and down the range at the pga tournament, i defy you to find the difference. i think the key thing about a tour player, that separates a tour player from a good player who didn't make the tour, is not their ability, it's their ability to do it consistently. the phenomenal thing about tiger woods is that he can play at that level so many weeks, so many times, you go from there down the list, but you take a guy like jim furyk. seven times in the last few years he has been in the league, he has been in the top 25 as many times as phil. he has won 16 times. --l has one for teen times

thatas won 14 times. doesn't mean he's not as good a player, it's just something about golf that separates you. such a fine line in any given round, that separates you from the pack. >> can you explain what it is about -- other inconsistency, being able to do it every thursday -- people talk about the mental edge. i think tiger had that. he had that mental toughness. he was leading -- he would likely win. >> i think i could answer, but i will defer to tiger. i heard him tiger answer a kid's question. do you see anybody coming up who can beat you? and tiger said, i see a lot of guys coming up who are really

good, but i don't see anybody coming up who had, at the time i was coming up, my level of confidence. because i won so much and i was little, so much when i was in high school, so much when i was in college, that i got to a confidence level that i knew i could beat the other guy. there was never any question. if you get that -- but the problem is, the only way to get it is to win. >> if jack was playing at his best with the best equipment today, how good would he be? >> he would be pretty good because he was so smart. he managed a golf course as good as anybody ever has. >> is that right? >> yeah. on the other hand, to argue like some do that the equipment is

better, i think there is more competition for the guys today. when you've got 144 guys teeing off, all of whom had the ability to shoot four rounds of golf. that is a lot of competition. if you go back four years, there 25, 30 guys, there wasn't as much competition. i think jack plays good now. he plays great. when he goes out, he plays well. he can play.

>> an interesting sport because you were playing the course all stop it is you versus the course. >> two or three of the first-time players at augusta -- a couple of the other young guys who had not played commented that they learned a lot that week, that they learned -- they thought they were supposed to hit it over here, they hit it over here, it didn't work. here are guys that study these players, and you would think they would know exactly where to hit it. but you try a shot here or there, you don't get it. it is a fabulous game, challenging. >> there are a lot of people who are beginning to say nine holes is enough. >> we're never going to move away from 18 holes. but for the recreational player to make nine holes mean something. we finished legends of golf, the reason we did it was we wanted to get the word out that par 3 golf and nine hole golf is

great, it is real golf. if you are on usga handicap, that is all you need to play. the time element is a challenge. the question of how many rounds. i played alternate shot in scotland two weeks ago. two hours and 20 minutes of fabulous experience. we have to figure out a way -- >> you were playing with somebody, and whoever had the shot with the most distance, you would hit that shot -- >> no. it works, you and our partners, we designate which one is going to tee off on 1, 3, 5, 7 -- you hit alternately. but when you are playing with two other guys, we are going to go to the first team, and while you are going that way, we are going that way.

it is great. >> play the way former president bush did. >> i played with them several times. it was an aerobic experience. >> thank you for coming. and thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

>> live from pier three in san francisco, welcome to bloomberg west, where we cover innovation, technology and the future of business. buzz feed is building serious was for itself stop the website famous for its list and viral content just raise $50 million from andreessen horowitz will stop they will be using the money to build its movie studio and expand overseas. amazon takes aim at disney, blocking pre-orders of dvds like the new "captain america" movie. they've also been in pricing battles with warner bros.