captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> my credibility's not on the line. the international community's credibility is on the line. >> woodruff: president obama took his case overseas today, to bolster support for a military strike on syria. good evening. i'm judy woodruff. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. on the newshour tonight, a key senate committee backed the use of force. we talk with white house deputy national security advisor tony blinken and republican senator deb fischer of nebraska. >> i have many concerns. we need to look at the consequences of any action that we take in syria. >> woodruff: then, al qaeda's fight against american drones and the "black budget" behind u.s. intelligence. we examine the latest revelations from the classified information leaked by edward

snowden. >> ifill: roughly one out of every six new yorkers is over 65. hari sreenivasan reports on efforts to make the big apple a little more age-friendly. >> woodruff: and are colleges too focused on career training? jeffrey brown sits down with the author of the new book "why teach?" that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> bnsf. >> supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information at macfound.org >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you.

thank you. >> ifill: president obama began a trip to europe today for an economic summit, but syria stayed at the top of his agenda. the administration's push for military action advanced in congress even as the president issued a new appeal to the world. >> my credibility's not on the line. the international community's credibility is on the line. >> ifill: arriving in stockholm today, the president immediately moved to turn up the pressure on potential allies, and he defended his year-old statement, saying syria should not cross a "red line" by using chemical weapons in its ongoing civil war. >> first of all, i didn't set a red line. the world set a red line. the world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are

abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. >> ifill: syria never signed the 1993 international convention on chemical weapons, but mr. obama insisted bashar assad's government must not be allowed to act with impunity. instead, he appealed again for russia-- a major ally of the assad regime-- to stop blocking u.n. security council action on syria. >> i think that international action would be much more effective, and, ultimately, we can end deaths much more rapidly if russia takes a different approach to these problems. >> ifill: the president heads to st. petersburg, russia, for a g- 20 meeting this week, but, in moscow, russian president vladimir putin dismissed the u.s. appeal. he warned the west has no right to initiate military action without u.n. support.

>> ( translated ): i do not exclude this, but i would like to draw your attention to one absolutely key aspect. only the u.n. security council could sanction the use of force against a sovereign state. any other pretext or method can only be interpreted as an aggression. >> ifill: back in washington, president obama's policy passed its first test in congress. the senate foreign relations committee approved a resolution authorizing the limited use of force, but it bars any deployment of american combat troops. republican john mccain won approval of an amendment that also advocates a broader strategy of strengthening the syrian rebels. >> i feel in the strongest terms that we need to have that provision that calls for reversal of momentum on the ground battle against bashar assad. if bashar assad remains in an advantageous position, he will never leave syria.

he has to know that he is losing, and that way you get a negotiated settlement for his departure. >> ifill: today's committee action marked the first vote approving military strikes since october 2002, when congress authorized the invasion of iraq. on the other side of the capitol, the house foreign affairs committee heard from secretary of state john kerry, defense secretary chuck hagel and general martin dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. anti-war protesters waved hands painted red, simulating blood, as kerry spoke. >> there are risks of acting, but believe me it is our judgment collectively and the president's that the greater risks are not acting. we will have said to him, "nobody cares, gas your people, you do what you need to to stay in office" and back off. that would be... i honestly find

that that would be one of those moments that will live in infamy. >> ifill: the president reaffirmed his desire for congressional support in his stockholm appearance today, but he suggested a "no" vote would not tie his hands. >> as commander in chief, i always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of america's national security. i do not believe that i was required to take this to congress, but i did not take this to congress just because it's an empty exercise. i think it's important to have congress' support on it. >> ifill: in paris, the french parliament began its own debate on a military response as the prime minister echoed the warnings from washington. >> ( translated ): to not act would be to put in danger peace and security in the entire region, but, also beyond that, our own security. i ask the question, what credibility would our international commitments have against non-proliferation of

weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons? >> ifill: meanwhile, the fighting in syria continued, unaffected by debates around the globe. rebels and regime forces engaged in heavy gun battles on the outskirts of damascus. >> woodruff: now a view from the white house. tony blinken is president obama's deputy national security adviser. i spoke with him a short time ago. bli, thank you very much for joining us. let me just start by asking if you you think the administration will have the votes it needs in congress to take military action. >> judy, i do. look at what we've seen over the last couple of days. yesterday, we saw the emergence of strong bipartisan support for this authorization. we had speaker boehner. we had leader cantor. leader pelosi in the house. we have a strong bipartisan

group in the senate, including the leaders of the senate foreign relations committee, senator monday, and senator corker. and just today, we have the passage in the senate foreign relations committee of our resolution authorizing the use of force. so the momentum is there, and i think we're heading in exactly that direction. >> woodruff: tony, in an interview with the "newshour" last week, the president said the main point of any military strike would be to punish and deter the assad regime. now, though we hear senators mccain and graham saying in their conversation with the president, he's talking about degrading the capabilities of the assad regime. that's going a step further, isn't it? what does that mean to degrade? >> judy there are two things going on here that are important to understand. with regard to the underlying conflict in syria, there has been a civil war going oas you know. and we've been working very hard to end that war and we think the best way to do that is through a negotiating transition that moves assad out through a

political process. in order to do that, we've got to get him to the negotiating table and that involves, in part, putting the pressure on him, isolating him, and billion up the opposition, which we've been doing in recent months, as well as having a diplomatic track. and there we will be, i think, doing more to support opposition as they try and convince assad that he needs to negotiate an end to this. within that, we have this terrible chemical weapons attack of august 21. and we believe that it's imperative that we respond to that because there's been a norm against the use of chemical weapons for nearly 100 years. if we allow this to go unchecked, assad will continue to do it with impunity. other countries around the world and in the region who have weapons of mass destruction or seek to acquire them will conclude they can use them with impunity. the action we're proposing would be focused on the chemical weapons and making sure that assad is deterred from using them again, and that his ability to use them again is degraded,

and that's what this is focused on. now, it's also true in any action we take, assad is very likely to conclude things he holds dear are at risk, and in that sense, he's likely to have a greater incentive to want to negotiate an end to this underlying conflict. >> woodruff: so in other words, in addition to punishing, you want to weaken the assad regime, make it easier for the opposition to take over the government. >> so, the focus of this military effort that we're proposing is limited and focused on his chemical weapons capability and it's to deter him, to tell him don't do it again but it's also to make it a lot harder to do it again if he makes the mistake of trying to do it again. but in that context, he's also going to learn that things that are important to him militarily are at risk, and that can have the effect of convincing him that he need to negotiate an end to the underlying conflict as well. >> woodruff: well, in terms of helping the rebels, we know there was a very prominent news

report yesterday that military lethal aid had not yet reached the opposition. now we're hearing that it may be close to reaching the opposition. can you tell us whether it has at this point, and if not, is it about to? >> so, judy, a number of countries have been providing assistance to the opposition, including the united states. and some months ago, you'll recall, that when our intelligence community concluded initially that assad had been using on a small scale chemical weapons over the past year, the president said that we would be increasing our support to the opposition. and we've spent some time putting in place an effort to do just that. and what i can tell you now without detailing any of the support is that we have moved out on that. >> woodruff: so lethal aid has reached the opposition, is reaching it now? >> so, judy, what i can say is without detailing the kind of assistance we're providing ifs we have significantly increased

the assistance that is getting to the opposition. >> woodruff: glood how long do you any any campaign strike against the assad regime will take. the reason ski is we know in striking kosovo many years ago, the clt administration spoke about it lasting a few days. 20 on for something like 72 days. once something like this get started, how do you know you can put an end to it? >> judy, it's really important that people understand what this is and what this isn't. and it's understandable that people have concerns about this being some kind of open-ended potential action. it is not. the reason people tend to have that as an initial reaction is they are look at this through the frame of the last decade, a war in iraq, a war in afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of american troops committed. well, what this is is a very targeted, very focused, time-limited action to deter assad from using chemical weapons again, and to make it harder for him to do so. what it is not is open-ended.

it is not boots on the ground. it is not iraq. it is not afghanistan. it's not kosovo. it's not even libya. i can't be any more precise than that, but it is var limited, targeted action, but an effective one to deal with the use of chemical weapons. >> woodruff: and is the administration prepared for unintended cons qebses? the syrian foreign minister is saying today there's no way of knowing what will be the repercussions of a u.s. strike. he talks about syria striking back at turkey, at israel, and at lebanon, if the u.s. hit his country. >> we are very well prepared. we know that any action has risk, any action can have unintended consequences. we do a lot of work to make sure we anticipate what those might be and to take steps to mitigate them. but we also believe fundamentally that not acting would have far greater and far griever consequences. if we don't act to enforce a norm of the use of chemical weapons that has been around for

nearly 100 years that congress has gotten strongly behind over the last decade, if we don't do that, assad will conclude he can use these weapons again with impunity. other countries who have such weapons or aspire to get them will also conclude they can acquire them andue them with impunity. that will do terrible damage to our security and the security of other countries around the world. there are always dangers in acting, we do what we can to mitigate them. >> woodruff: the top security advisers are recommending the president cut off aid to the egyptian military. hundreds of millions of dollars in retaliation for the removal of the morsi presidency. is that the case? is that what you and others are recommending to the president? >> so, judy, we know that after what happened in egypt, as the president has said, it's not going to be business as usual. and in the wake of the violence

that we saw after morsi was pushed out of power, we suspended the delivery of f-16s. we suspended a major military exr size. and the rest of our assistance is under review. we also have a strong incentive to encourage the egyptians to get on a democratic track, to have an inclusive process that brings an inclusive government into power, and we're working with them on that. beyond that, at this point, all i can tell you is we look at this on a regular basis and we've already taken steps to suspend some of our assistance. >> woodruff: tony blinken, the deputy national security adviser to president obama, thank you. >> thanks for having me, judy. >> next a view from the senate. last night i talked with michigan democrat carl levin. tonight we speak with "fisher v. university of texas." we spoke earlier this fngs. >> tonight, where do you stand

on the president's request for a war authorization? >> i have many concerns. we need to look at the consequences of any action that we take in syria. we need to know what the strategy is, what's the mission, what are the goals, both long term and short term. term. >> ifill: you know, the process was in stockholm today as i'm sure you're aware. one of the things he was talking about is it's not his credibility on the line, it's the world's credibility, congress' credibility bhap do you think about that, whose credibility, if anybody's, was on the line. >> i was pretty surprised by his comment. it was the president who drew that line. it's the president's credibility. he's now come to the united states congress and we'll be looking at his mission, as he's going to define it. but i think it is his credibility. he needs to make the case, and he needs to make it to the people of this country. i'd like to see the president have a meeting, have a press

conference in the oval office, have an address, and lay this out, lay out the mission, lay out the goals. the people of this country truly understand that they're war-wise. they're not just war weary. martha raddatz said that on a sunday program and i think it's very insightful. the nebraskans i talk to understand war. they understand war in the middle east. we've been there. we've done it. we know what's coming. so the president has to make things th case. >> ifill: let's talk about what congress and the senate in particular is trying to do to make this war authorization fit. it's almost like a goldilocks-- too hot, too cold choice-- in this case whether it's too broad, whether you end up with boots on the ground and involved in a civil war, or tooinaree, a limited strike that doesn't accomplish much. what do you think is the greatest concern in trying to strike that balance? >> i think the greatest concern is to understand what the

mission is. i've said that before. we can have a narrow strike. but then is that a shot across the bow? what does that mean? let's define that. let's define what the submission. there's a lot of unintended consequences out there. i've been in that region twice now. i've had the opportunity to meet with officials with the jordanian government. they have many, many concerns going forward. so this just doesn't affect us as a country. it affects our allies as well. it affects this entire region. it affects the world. again, the president has to make a case. >> ifill: the president, the secretary of state, and the latest drafts in these resolutions have all made the point there would be no u.s. boots on the ground in any kind of enterprise in syria. do you agree with that? is that taking it too far? >> i think the american people don't want to see boots on the ground. as i said, we've been in the conflicts in that region before. we're not ready to go back.

we need to understand what the ramifications are. we can say no boots on the ground, but what if assad uses chemical weapons again? how do we respond? it's happened 14 times. we're just responding now. the british prime minister said this has happened 14 times. so why are we just responding now? that's a question that needs to be answered as well. >> ifill: so there is-- as you try to figure that out, why it didn't happen before, have you ruled out in your mind that it should happen now? >> you know, i haven't ruled out anything. we're learning more and more every day. we just heard from the secretary of defense, secretary hagel today, that the russians are supplying chemical weapons to syria. we didn't know that before. i've gone through two conference calls, briefings. i went through a briefing with the armed services committee this morning. we just heard that today. so what else don't we know?

if the russians are involved in this, are they supplying the syrians with with chemical weapons, and what consequences arconsequencesare we going to st action? how are they going to respond if we go in and attack syria. >> ifill: how important if this resolution is granted is it to to you that the president at some date concern come back to congress? >> as i said, the president needs to talk to the american people. let's have that address from the oval office, have him lay out his case. we're getting more and more information in briefings, but the american people have so many questions on this. they need to be a part of this discussion, too. and it's up to the president to be able to put that case forward. >> ifill: is one of the answers to the question for you that perhaps the arab league or more arab nations should be involved? >> i'd like to see a number of our allies step forward. we've heard that there are a few out there. i understand that the french are

going to be involved in some manner, but i haven't heard details on how these different countries are going to be involved. we aren't getting support from the united nations. we aren't getting support from our very reliable allies, such as great britain. and we need to look at other solutions that may be out there. as i mentioned, we have the british prime minister saying that there had been 14 instans of chemical weapons used but this is our response to this one situation that took place. it's horrible. i'm not saying that it isn't. we've seen about 2,000 people, many of them children, that have been attacked by their own government and died. but we have seen over 100,000 syrians killed in this civil war over the last two years with no response from the administration. gliestled do you worry at all,

as some of your colleagues appear to, that there is a potential for retaliation from others in the region against the u.s. should it get involved? >> as i said, we don't know what the consequences of any action we take will be. we don't know what the ramifications will be. somebody will retaliate. i would ask a question of the administration and of the secretary of state and the secretary of defense is how effective are these small strikes? give me some examples. give me some examples in want past when we have seen how effective that they can be and, again, are we going to see retaliation against us or against our allies because of that? i'd like to hear some answers to those questions. >> ifill: some of your colleagues, senator john mccain among them, and the house leadership have, said that they believe that if a resolution-- if the president's request for a war resolution, an unprecedented rejection would

occur, this would be bad for the nation. do you think that would be true? >> i think what would be bad for the nation is to become embroiled in a situation in the middle east again where we don't have a clear mission, where we don't have a defined goal. >> ifill: senator debfisher, republican of nebraska, thanks for joining us. >> thank you. >> woodruff: still to come on the newshour: secrets revealed by the snowden leaks; seniors take the big apple; and fostering a love of learning. but first, the other news of the day. here's kwame holman. >> reporter: the cleveland man convicted of holding captive and raping three women over a decade was found dead in his prison cell overnight. ariel castro had begun serving a life sentence on august 1. ohio prison officials said the 53-year-old hanged himself with a bed sheet. his three victims declined comment, but former neighbors said castro avoided facing his crimes. >> i was just astobbished. i thought he would be in prison

for a long time and find out the truth of what he did something like this and carry it on for 10 years. >> they made a deal so he could spend the rest of his life in jail. he couldn't even last 10 years, as long as he held these girls. i thought it was a cowardly action that he chose to end his life. >> reporter: prison officials said castro was in protective custody but not on suicide watch. corrections officers were to check on him every 30 minutes. the american civil liberties union called for an investigation into the death. u.s. army private chelsea manning has formally requested a presidential pardon for leaking thousands of classified documents to wikileaks. the soldier, formerly bradley manning, is serving a 35-year sentence at fort leavenworth, kansas. she has said she wants to live as a woman and receive hormone therapy. the pardon request was sent to president obama through the justice department. tens of thousands of gold miners walked off the job overnight and today in south africa. they had demanded up to a 60% increase in pay but reportedly

lowered it to 10%. that's still more than the offer gold mining companies have made. gold prices have fallen and south africa has been overtaken as the number one gold producer. the country's mining industry has been hit by sometimes violent labor strife. 46 people died last year during unrest at a major platinum mine. thomas perez was sworn in today as u.s. secretary of labor. vice president biden presided over a ceremony at the labor department. perez vowed to focus on speeding up the pace of economic recovery. >> boiled down on our essence, the department of lasch is the department of opportunity, and as weerg of emerge from the most-- the worst recession of our lifetime, i will make it my top priority to expand opportunity in a number of different ways. and, first, we must invest in our workforce. >> reporter: perez previously led the justice department's civil rights division. automakers in the u.s. posted double-digit gains in august,

their best showing in at least five years. toyota racked up a 23% gain, general motors was up 15%, and ford and chrysler sales rose 12%. the companies did well on both ends of their lineups, posting strong sales of pickup trucks and small cars. the auto news helped wall street rally. the dow jones industrial average gained nearly 97 points to close just short of 14,931. the nasdaq rose 36 points to close at 3649. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to judy. >> woodruff: when former national security agency contractor edward snowden leaked classified documents to the press in may, he revealed extensive u.s. spying operations carried out on enemies and allies alike. last week, the "washington post" published a detailed account of the so called "black budget," money the u.s. government spends on spy operations. it was also revealed that u.s. intelligence agencies have been reading the personal emails of the presidents of mexico and brazil.

at his press conference with the swedish prime minister in stockholm today, president obama denied that the u.s. was eavesdropping. >> i can give assurances to the publics in europe and around the world that we're not going around snooping at people's e-mails or listening to their phone calls. what we try to do is to target very specifically areas of concern. and there may be situations in which we're gathering information just because we can, but that doesn't help with us our national security, but does raise questions in terms of whether we're tipping over into being too intrusive. >> woodruff: for more, i'm joined by craig whitlock of the "washington post"-- he's written many stories based on the snowden leaks; plus, kate martin, director of the center for national security studies;

and stewart baker, former general counsel at the national security agency. thank you all three for being with us. craig whitlock, let me start with you and ask you about what we just heard the president commenting on. there have been several sets of disclosures. one set did have to do with the u.s. reading the e-mails of the leaders of these countries that are supposed to be allies. tell us a little bit about what those disclosures were. >> well, i think as the president described in a backdoor manner, the national security agency and other u.s. spy agencies conduct surveillance on a pretty astounding scale worldwide, and some of these embarrassing parts of it are starting to come to light, including communications, e-mails, phone calls involving the leadership of countries that are our partners and allies. and i think these countries maybe suspected this sort of thing was going on, but with a wink and a nod, they wouldn't inquire about it. now it's coming to light, and it's embarrassing. >> woodruff: when the president says it's not happening, how do you square

that? >> well, he didn't say it's not happening. he said sometimes we gather up in our surveillance things that maybe we weren't targeting, but, you know, you have to be-- you have to listen to him again. he didn't deny that it was happening. he just said maybe it wasn't intentional. >> woodruff: there's another set of disclosures, in fact you wrote about this today in the "washington post," and that is the story about al qaeda trying for several years now to disable american drones. give us-- give us that story in a nutshell. >> yeah, this was another revelation in some of the documents that snowden gave to us, which was that u.s. spy agencies for some time had been monitoring al qaeda's research and development efforts to shoot down or jam or even hijack drones which, of course, have been the bane of their existence. they haven't been able to do that yet, but there is evidence they've been able to mount some route rooudimentry electronic warfare to try to defend themselves. and it's pretty striking the degree and energy which they put

into that effort. >> woodruff: they haven't been able to do it so far, as far as we know. >> not so far as we know, but there are vulnerabilities in how these drones fly, and you can see why they would try and target that. >> woodruff: there have been a number of disclosures, but the other major one one that your newspaper, the "washington post," reported last week, was the so-called black budget, the actual amount of money-- what is it $52 billion-- being spent every year on intelligence gathering. >> that's right, and the government tots credit would say each year this is how much we spend on the black budget. they would give one number and this is it. what these documents that snowden provided is here is what our priorities are, here's what the different agencies, the fact that the c.i.a. gets about 30% of that. much more than the national security agency did. and the details on their priorities is what they were spending it on all had been secret for years. so this document, 200 pages almost, really outlines to congress what this money is being spent owhat parts of the world what, kinds of

intelligence going toering, and that had all been secret for pretty much ever. >> woodruff: a lot of details in there. kate martin, stewart baker, let me bring the two of you into this conversation. first, stewart baker, what about this black budget? is this information that should be in the public realm? >> no, under no circumstances. even the-- you know, 95% of it was withheld by the "post" which was persuaded that it was too dangerous to release, and even the things they released tell the syrians and the iranians and al qaeda what we been them, and more importantly what, they have successfully hidden from us. that tells them what's working and what's not. it's going to set us back. >> woodruff: so you're saying it-- it's done damage, it will do damage? >> yes. i think the fact that it does damage without revealing any scandals -- i didn't see any scandals in the "post" coverage-- tells us something about snowden. he didn't release this as a whistleblower because of a scandal. he released it, as far as i can

tell, to do as much damage to the u.s. intelligence community as he could do. >> woodruff: kate martin, how do you see this in terms of damage or not? >> well, i don't think it's at all clear how much damage there will be from the "post's" disclosures about what was in the document. the obama administration, for example, in its defense of the syrian action has talked about intercepting syrian military officers talking to each other. so that's not a secret. and when i read the story about the black budget, it's not clear how much of that is actually a secret from our adversaries. i think what is a secret and what we need more of is is the question of how much money are we spending on the intelligence community? how are we spending it-- not the details. not who are we paying off. and whether or not it's effective. and that's a hard balance to strike. how do you end up with a public

discussion about that. >> woodruff: you're saying more information needs to be out, not less. >> more information than had been released by the administration does need to be out, and i think one of the contexts for the snowden disclosures is that there's been too much secrecy, and now there's too much disclosure by somebody who wasn't authorized to disclose and hadn't any basis for deciding what to disclose. >> woodruff: stewart baker, what about another set of disclosure we were discussing, spying or eavesdropping on personal communications of leaders of other countries who are spozzed to be american allies. damaging or not? >> it is damaging in the short run because it is focusing attention on snag is usually understood by everyone but not talked about. the fact is our allies all spy on us. it's just part of international affairs. but no one liekdz of likes to see it and be reminded of it in

such a dramatic way. >> woodruff: what about today's disclosure in the "washington post" again about al qaeda trying for several years to disable u.s. drones. >> i'm hoping they can persuade them that if eight of them go out into a field and all turn on their cell phones at once, that that might work. >> woodruff: what do you mean? >> because we'll target them particularly easy then. no, i think that's a fool's errand for them. that's my guess. it's not going to work-- >> woodruff: but you don't see that as particularly damaging, is my question. >> only in sort of biplay. that is to say, it might tell al qaeda which of their communications have been intercepted because they'll say, "year, i remember saying that." so something i was-- that was in the room when i said that is a source for u.s. intelligence. >> woodruff: kate martin, what about these other two elements? how damaging or not? >> well, it's hard to say as an outsider. on the other hand when i read the story by mr. whitlock about

what al qaeda is trying to do with regard to our drones tlooked to me like lots of that was already in the public domain. i think one of the things the government hasn't gotten its hands around is in the new internet globa globalized age, s very hard to keep information locked up. they don't have very good systems, it looks like, for keeping it locked up. but it's out there anyway. and the problem and the importance of it is we need to have a democratic debate and understanding about what our intelligence community is doing and whether or not it's doing it effectively. >> woodruff: and you're saying this makes that more possible. craig whitlock, back to you, the "post" made it very clear you were not disclosing everything you knew, everything you were given by snowden. how do you make that decision? where do you drawt line? >> each line-- each story is a din line. in general, we don't disclose

things that would bring any-- put anyone in personal danger. we wouldn't disclosure things that might jeopardize military systems, pretty obvious secrets like that. things like the budget, it's a little more difficult. these are numbers. this is policy matters. it's something the government has kept secret for a long time. we felt felt pretty strongly that's something, as kate said, the public deserves to have a debate about. operational details, we wouldn't disclose that, but sometimes that information is twinned together, and you have to sort of figure out how to separate it out. it's not an easy process and it's one we're careful about. >> woodruff: clearly an ongoing discussion. we thank you all three, craig whitlock, kate martin, stewart baker, thank you. >> ifill: now, we continue our occasional look at aging and the challenges of long-term care. tonight, hari sreenivasan reports on a push to make new york city more livable in later

years. ♪ >> sreenivasan: it's 9:30 in the morning in east harlem, new york city, and the thomas jefferson pool is springing to life. >> take the plunge! >> sreenivasan: several dozen seniors have come to take the plunge, and take part in the pool's senior swim hours. 72-year-old maria pacheco, who takes attendance, comes three times a week. >> people socialize. being around people their own age, i should say you are not self-conscious of who's looking. here, nobody's comparing you to anyone else, so you can relax. >> 1, 2, 3, 4! >> sreenivasan: the jefferson pool was the first to offer the senior swim hours. now, there are 15, with more than 1,000 seniors participating. it's pacheco's third summer here at jefferson. it helps keep her days busy. so, you're volunteering, you are teaching seniors, you are taking swim classes.

you are pretty active. >> i don't want to get old, and this does it for you-- being involved, doing everything. >> sreenivasan: and that's becoming easier to accomplish, thanks to a recent initiative to make the city more livable for seniors. they now account for roughly one out of every six new yorkers. age-friendly new york city was launched in 2009. funding of $4 million has been provided by the mayor's office, the new york city council and the new york academy of medicine, along with the assistance of many foundation grants. >> the population that is 65 and older has just surpassed the population that is 18 and younger. >> sreenivasan: linda gibbs is the city's deputy mayor for health and human services. >> what were really trying to do is change the culture of the city as a whole so that we... instead of seeing elderly new yorkers as a deficit, as a problem to be solved, instead we say the world is fundamentally a changing place.

we're living longer, we're living healthier, and older new yorkers now are here in numbers that have surpassed anything in history. >> sreenivasan: one key ingredient to the initiative is listening to seniors, according to ruth finkelstein of the new york academy of medicine. she leads the initiatives private sector efforts. >> everything we do is grounded in the perspectives and voices of older adults. the first thing that they have to realize is, we don't stand in the shoes of the people that we're addressing and that we need first and foremost to understand the city through their perspective. >> sreenivasan: the program is now up and running in all five boroughs including manhattan, where we met up with ed and sarah aarons. they can't imagine living anywhere but here. >> it's all near what's happening, what's happening in the world. i can't conceive of adjusting to

anyplace else, and i can't conceive of having the facilities and conveniences and the excitement as other places. >> the only two places he would like to live the rest of his life is paris or new york. ( laughs ) >> sreenivasan: sarah, who's 93, and ed, 85, have lived in the same upper west side apartment for 50 years. sarah now gets around on a motorized chair. we tagged along with her while she ran errands around her neighborhood. most of the city buses can now kneel down, to make it easier for sarah to hop on and off. >> thank you. >> sreenivasan: but there are still challenges for sarah and for the city. >> i can't get up on this side. it's too high, so i have to go around this way and get into traffic. >> sreenivasan: it has spent millions on infrastructure changes spread across many

agencies. but while more than 100 intersections have been redesigned to include longer crossing times and cuts in the curb to make it easier to navigate, there are thousands left to make the whole city more senior friendly. but it is working in east harlem, where we toured with finkelstein. if i look at this whole corner, i've got a shelter, i've got a bench so a senior can sit, i've got glass so they feel safe, i've got shade so they don't feel too hot. they've got cutouts so they can use their ramps or walkers. >> how are you today? >> sreenivasan: for seniors like the aarons, being able to get out and about to do their errands is essential to staying out of assisted living. >> you go there, and everybody has white hair. they don't look like they are enjoying life. to me, to be able to do things yourself rather than have something done for you, you

know, to try your best to do as much for yourself as possible. >> sreenivasan: age-friendly also partners with the private sector to help businesses better serve older customers. the changes are simple: better lighting, a place to sit and larger fonts so seniors can see what's available. local stores like fairway markets offer shuttle buses and in-store assistance. >> if you are in the retail business and you want to serve a meal and you want to cut hair and you want to, you know, offer supplies, you know, you've got to think about who is in the city buying. >> sreenivasan: more than a thousand businesses have now signed up for the program. >> at home, you're going to be paying for an internet service provider. >> sreenivasan: in their talks with seniors, the collaboration also found there was an increasing technology gap. this technology lab, senior planet, is the first technology- themed center for people over 60 in the country. new york city is arguably the

most diverse on the planet, and creating a program that was inclusive to everyone was essential. >> affordability is a huge issue for older adults, and it's not adequate to make a city work well for only for people with means >> sreenivasan: but it's been a challenge that goes beyond curb cuts. they want to find a way to make the city more affordable for all seniors. >> in new york, i have to say housing is so difficult. we have ideas that we haven't yet implemented, but the essential basic price of real estate-- how expensive it is to be housed in new york-- is a challenge that i don't feel that we've addressed adequately. >> sreenivasan: and the need for these types of changes isn't just in new york city, according to dr. linda fried, the dean of columbia university's mailman school of public health. >> the aging of the population is one of the most significant

historic shifts in the history of the world, and what we're going to see is what countries all over the world are seeing, which is that we are living longer lives. >> sreenivasan: this summer, a delegation from hong kong visited to get tips on making their city more age-friendly. dozens of other cities across the u.s. and around the world have started their own plans or used the city as a model. according to deputy mayor gibbs, the reason it's worked in new york is because they started allocating resources differently. >> while there are some additional costs associated with the program, overwhelmingly what we asked agencies to do is think about what you are doing already, and can you do it in a way that is more age-sensitive so that when you do the repaving, when you do the new curbs, when you spend your money on your senior centers, why not spend it in a different way? and in this way, i think is very replicable. >> sreenivasan: and there are benefits that aren't limited to just seniors. >> the dirty little secret on

this planet is that, from my point of view, anything you design that will facilitate access, engagement, safety, enjoyment and participation by older people turns out to be good for all age groups. so you are not designing just for one age group, but you are ensuring the engagement and contributions of all age groups by doing that. >> sreenivasan: meanwhile, on this hot day in new york, the seniors all here at the jefferson pool agree-- so far, they're in step with all the changes. >> ifill: online, explore a top ten list of age-friendly cities in the u.s. >> woodruff: next, with millions of students returning to class this week, we continue our series about ideas being discussed and debated in the world of education. tonight, we turn to the role of universities and explore a question getting plenty of

attention amid concerns about student debt: what is the real purpose of college? jeffrey brown has our conversation. >> brown: if you want an education, the odds aren't with you, just one of many provocative lines from a new book exploring the contemporary university, very much including the most elite institutions and the lives of teachers and students. it's called "why teach: in defense of a real education." author mark edmundson is a professor of english at the university of virginia and joins us now. welcome to you. >> thanks so much. >> brown: first what, say real education and why does it need defending? >> well, a real education-- i'll offend a few people by saying this-- is humanities based and getting to know yourself, figuring out who you are and what you want to do with your life. >> brown: and that is not what is taught now? >> well, i think a lot of student come to school, having been primed by their parents and

teaches to go into a business school, go into an economic major and science major whether it's in their heart or not. we have to speak to that, it seems to me, and that's what i try to do in the book. >> brown: you write midway through the last century, american higher education changed. colleges and universities entered a new stage in which they stopped being intellectually driven and began to model themselveses on business. >> yes, a lot of truth in that, i still think. schools have become more consumer oriented -- can we give you the best kind of food? can we give you the best kind of gym? request kwe give you all the entertainment you need on saturday and surrender the best kind of football team? but in the end you have to pay for it. there are a lot of diversions out there but there is still the heart of a good education. >> brown: why has that happened that it became more business oriented and what does that do to the actual exchange between teacher and student? >> it became more business oriented, because like

businesses, i think the universities competed for students. and one of the ways to compete is offer as plush and easy a circumstance as possible. so the professors have had to step forward and try to underline those expectations of a continuing consumer pleasurable encounter-- do a little bit of challenging. do a little bit of questioning, do a little bit of the socratic thing we try to do. >> brown: not enough? i'm trying to figure how far are you pushing this? is it coddling the student in the sense that they're not challenging them enough because they're more like customers rather than student? what's the argument? >> well, i think they come with those al qaeda of expectations, but i think professors try to push back in the direction of a more serious kind of engagement. one of the things we're doing it seems to me is we're teaching students very well how to read and interpret demanding and interesting texts. but we're not going far enough in asking them the critical question-- is this true? how would you apply it to your life? how would you live it snout and that's a place i think we professors could do some stepping up. >> brown: we talk a lot about

a crisis in the humanities. you seem to think of a crisis within the humanities, that it's-- that the humanities are being sold the wrong way, if that's the right wordarchs ways to hup get a job or to help you eye don't know-- do better in life, rather than something else. >> right. well i think that, you know, the humanities can help you do better in life. you can learn to read well, write well, think well, present yourself in an appealing sort of way. i think fundamentally we're not about success but what we're about is challenging and examining every single kind of socially acreditted standard out there. if a student studies the humanities and reads plato and socrates he may come out believing he wants to be a success but he might want come out wanting to live a life of poverty, better a happy kid than a slogging away, successful kid. >> brown: successful in

conventional terms. the colleges shouldn't be contingent the kids-- i mean what, do you-- you want to attract kids to your class, right? >> sure. >> brown: but not to say this might help you become a lawyer or a doctor or an engineer? >> what i'm more likely to say is this will help you decide whether you want to bake lawyer, a doctor or engineer, and if you do decide to do that you'll be all the more successful because you made the decision on its own, not imposed by the outside. >> brown: i can hear people saying it's a tough economy. kids and parents pay a lot of money to go to college. >> uh-huh. >> brown: what-- what do you tell people-- why should they not be thinking this has to lead to something with money or the economy in mind? >> uh-huh. well, you know, if you look at people's professional lives and ask them why do they fail? frequently they fail because they are a round peg trying to slam themselves into a square hole of a profession that they really do not love and are not committed to if a student learns

what he or she really values and wants to do the chance of success is much better and that's something we provide in the humanities that others don't. the thoing add is students may in the humanities look into this idea of success and say, no, not for me. i have a son who lives in austin, attack, works in a bike shop, and is writing a novel. i'm tremendously proud of him. he looked at the success thing, and so far he's saying, "not for me." >> brown: you're probably going to hear from people, this is the privilege of the well off to be able to center that kind of-- i don't know-- four years of thinking think and as you use the word from john ceets, soul making. >> i would like it to be a privilege that everybody has access to. when we say we can't afford that, we can afford 2.5 million people in jail. we can afford armies that can fight three wars at the same time. we can afford people to pay 15 to 0% of their taxes but not give everybody a chance at the

humanities? i'd rather open it up to everybody. >> brown: you refer to the astonishing opportunities at college. for all the tough things you have to say you talk about the wonders of our universities. what's the advice? how should a student take those-- particularly those starting right today odor this week-- how should they take advantage of that? >> you've got to look around for the teacher who is going to be great for you. there is this period they call shopping period-- probably not the best name-- but you go from dloos class, professor to professor, and you see-- you look around for somebody who really lights it up for you, looking for somebody with a ceeb mind, love of learning, and a warm heart. and you get those things together in the same person and you found somebody who might actually be able to teach you something and maybe you'll teach him something, too. >> brown: what about for those in your profession. what's the answer to your question, "why teach?" >> it's a little bit of a mystery. there's something just plain wonderful with watching people develop, and the ages between 18 and 22 are among the very west for that. people come, they're very

unformed. and they read and they think and they spend time with their friends. and they grow at this astronomical rate and it's just wonderful to be around and see it happen. >> brown: all right,un what, we're going to continue this conversation online. i want to ask you your own experience for become a professor. for now, mark edmundson, author of "why teach? in defense of a real education." >> ifill: again, the major developments of the day. president obama was in sweden, appealing for world support to punish syria for using chemical weapons. in washington, a senate committee approved a resolution authorizing the use of force. and the cleveland man convicted of holding three women captive over the course of a decade was found dead in his prison cell overnight. authorities said ariel castro hanged himself. >> woodruff: online, why being famous is a lot more lucrative than being good. kwame holman has more. >> reporter: on "making sense," the power of a household name. we looked into the sales of the book "the cuckoo's calling"

before and after its author, robert galbraith, was exposed as j.k. rowling. and what makes sarin deadly? on "science wednesday," we examine the potency of poisonous gas. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. judy? >> woodruff: and that's the newshour for tonight. before we go, a reminder. we have good news if you're used to watching the pbs newshour monday through friday. starting this weekend, you can find us saturdays and sundays, as well. pbs newshour weekend premieres this saturday, september 7. join hari sreenivasan for a 30- minute look at the top news stories with the same in-depth, independent coverage you've come to expect from the newshour. that's pbs newshour weekend, premiering right here this saturday. check your local listings. i'm judy woodruff. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. we'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org "n

report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib brought to you by. >> sailing through the heart of historic cities and landscapes on river you get close to iconic landmarks, to local life, to cultural treasures, viking river cruises, exploring the world in comfort. in the fast lane, auto sales sizzled. demand for tracks and crossovers sore as buyers rush into showrooms. prices are going to record levels. will that slam the brakes? power house, america's oil boom is so powerful, a study says it will boost the income of american households and will create millions of jobs. get smart, the battle has