and for this father's day weekend we explore a growing shift in the american family as more and more dads are choosing to stay home. those are just some of the stories we're covering on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> i've been around long enough to recognize the people who are out there owning it. the ones getting involved, staying engaged. they are not afraid to question the path they're on. because the one question they never want to ask is, "how did i end up here?" i started schwab with those people. people who want to take ownership of their investments, like they do in every other aspect of their lives. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: army sergeant bowe bergdahl is now undergoing treatment at a military medical center in texas. he flew there overnight from germany where he'd been recovering after being held captive by the taliban for five years. this afternoon, an army psychologist at the san antonio facility said one of the key elements in bergdahl's so-called reintegration progress is helping him re-learn how to make choices. the candidates in the race to become the next majority leader in the house of representatives changed again today. tea-party-backed congressman raul labrador of idaho entered the running hours after pete sessions of texas removed his name, but majority whip kevin mccarthy of california still appears to have the most support. a showdown is already underway to succeed mccarthy as the next second-in-command. the top contenders for the whip post are marlin stutzman of indiana, peter roskam of illinois, and steve scalise of louisiana. the g.o.p's leadership elections are set for next thursday. general motors is recalling more cars for an ignition switch problem. this time it's for 500,000 chevrolet camaros, mostly in north america. g.m. said a driver's knee could bump the key fob and move the ignition switch out of the run position, causing the engine to shut off. g.m. says this recall is not related to its earlier recall of more than two million vehicles that also had ignition switch problems. oil prices edged up again today, on worries the escalating insurgency in iraq could disrupt oil exports. oil futures had their biggest weekly gain of the year. tech stocks helped boost wall street today. the dow jones industrial average gained 41 points to close above 16,755. the nasdaq rose 13 points to close at 4,310. the s&p 500 added six points to close at 1,936. for the week, the dow lost nearly 1%. the nasdaq fell a quarter of a percent. and the s&p dropped less than a percent. in ukraine, government forces took back the southern port city of mariupol from pro-russia separatists. about 100 ukrainian soldiers drove rebels from buildings they'd occupied in the city. an interior ministry aide said at least five separatists and two soldiers were killed during clashes. also today, the state department confirmed russian tanks, rocket launchers and other heavy weapons went to separatists fighting in ukraine. thailand's military government fully lifted a nationwide curfew today. it was put in place last month when the military seized power. but officials said there's now no threat of violence and tourism needs to be revived. the junta's ban on political protests and criticism of the coup remains in place. elephants in africa are under attack by poachers, with 20,000 slaughtered on the continent in 2013. international wildlife regulators reported that finding today. in the garamba national park in the democratic republic of congo, 68 elephants were killed in the past two months alone. the director said that's 4% of the park's entire elephant population. he said poachers shoot the elephants with rifles from helicopters and then use chainsaws to remove their tusks. still to come on the newshour: the rapidly deteriorating situation in iraq, president obama weighs how the u.s. can help, then, the push to protect consumer data, mark shields and david brooks on the week's news. plus, why more and more american dads are choosing to stay home. iraq spiraled closer to all-out sectarian war today: sunni militants of the group called islamic state of iraq and the levant marched toward baghdad, while iraq's senior-most shiite cleric pleaded for armed resistance against the insurgents. meanwhile kurds consolidated their position in northern iraq. that's where jonathan rugman of independent televison news begins our coverage. >> reporter: under heavy guard we headed into the city of kirkuk. these oil and gas fields are just a few miles from the isis front line. this is the first of several vast military bases in kirkuk which iraq's army abandoned over night. iraq's 12th division clearly left in a hurry, even abandoning their uniforms so they could disappear into the crowd. america spent some $25 billion equipping iraq's armed forces. but look at how much has been destroyed here within the space of a few hours. this army vehicle was given to the iraqi forces by the americans. but the soldiers who were in charge of it appeared to have destroyed it before fleeing in the face of the radical islamist advance. just a snap shot of a chaos which is happening all over central iraq now. a country in danger of collapsing as a state. kurdish fighters have taken control here. they say to keep the jihadists out. and we could hear gunfire nearby. weapons are being traded on the street as kurds prepare to defend themselves from their arab neighbors. the clear intent here to turn this part of iraq into a kurdish state. >> we can't live with arab. ah.. we.. they are should believe in that is kurdistan and they are living in our land. >> reporter: these fighters from isis want a state as well with baghdad as their capitol. and today footage emerged of this army of jihadists regulars moving closer to the city, with holy war in mind. they have captured heavy weapons. these were filmed leaving the city of mosul in the north and today the first visual evidence emerged of shia insurgents fighting back. these are volunteers from the so called league of the righteous. and with iraq's most senior cleric promising martyrdom to all those killed the scene has been set for intense sectarian violence. but in kerbala, one of shia islam's holiest cities there was cheering and shouting as iraq's seemingly embattled majority announced it was preparing to defend itself. the grand ayatollah here sending out a messenger to deliver this urgent call to arms. >> ( translated ): we call on all citizens who can carry weapons and fight the terrorists in defense of the country its people and its holy sites to volunteer and join the security forces to fulfil this sacred goal. >> reporter: and these are those iraqi security forces defending shia shrines in the city of samarra as the men from isis continue their advance. >> woodruff: what's happening in iraq poses challenges and potential threats to the united states. earlier today, president obama addressed the situation, speaking from the south lawn of the white house. >> in the face of a terrorist offensive, iraqi security rces have proven unable to defend a number of cities, which has allowed the terrorists to overrun a part of iraq's territory. and this poses a danger to iraq and its people, and given the nature of these terrorists, it could pose a threat eventually to american interests as well. we will not be sending u.s. troops back into combat in iraq, but i have asked my national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support iraq's security forces. we're also going to pursue intensive diplomacy throughout this period, both inside of iraq and across the region, because there's never going to be stability in iraq or the broader region unless there are political outcomes that allow people to resolve their differences peacefully, without resorting to war or relying on the united states military. although events on the ground in iraq have been happening very quickly, our ability to plan-- whether it's military action or work with the iraqi government on some of these political issues-- is going to take several days. we want to make sure that we-- we have good eyes on the situation there. we want to make sure that we gathered all the intelligence that's necessary so that if in fact i do direct and order any actions there, that they're targeted, they're precise and they're going to have an effect. the united states has poured a lot of money into these iraqi security forces, and we devoted a lot of training to iraqi security forces. the fact that they are not willing to stand and fight and defend their posts against admittedly hardened terrorists, but not terrorists who are overwhelming in numbers, indicates that there's a problem with morale, there's a problem in terms of commitment. the united states is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the iraqis that gives us some assurance that they're prepared to work together. we're not going to allow ourselves to be dragged back into a situation in which while we're there we're keeping a lid on things and, after enormous sacrifices by us, as soon as we're not there, suddenly people end up acting in ways that are not conducive to the long-term stability and prosperity of the country. >> woodruff: we take a closer look now at the military and political options on the table. zalmay khalilzad was u.s. ambassador to iraq during the george w. bush administration and was an advocate for invading that country in the first place. he now has his own consulting firm. retired army colonel peter mansoor was the executive officer to the commander of u.s. forces in iraq, general david petraeus, during the surge in 2007 and 2008. he also led an army brigade in iraq during the invasion in 2003. he's now a professor of military history at ohio state university. and retired army colonel douglas macgregor led army forces when the u.s. invaded iraq in 1991. he's the author of a number of books about the military. he has his own consulting company. we welcome all three of you to the program. ambassador khalilzad, let me start with you, what do you make of president obama's comments todayhat, yes, he is considering military action, but that appears that it's going to be, if it happens, it's contingent on prime minister maliki making serious reforms? >> i think the president's objectives are exactly right. this problem will not be resolved in a lasting way unless the military support of the united states and on the ground by others, iraqis, largely, is coupled with a political deal involving iraqi communities. and the situation has changed drastically after mosul, not only the sunni-shia issue that has to be dealt with, that's why it's particularly focused on iraq, the kurds are in a different place than mosul, so there's a need of political compact among the iraqisened i think the trick for the president is how do you sequence u.s. military action with the political deal? do you wait till a political deal is made or do you do some things while you also work on the political deal? >> woodruff: colonel mansoor, do you see the president's remarks as making sense to you. >> it's right on the mark. you have to get the politics and policy right and once you have an iraqi government that doesn't marginalize and alienate segments of the population, it's worth doing. but i don't think until some things happen we should support it. >> woodruff: what do you mean? e would be backing the maliki government and taking sides in what's shaping up to be a bloody and brutal civil war. if the only way we should get involved is if iraq has a government with all ethnicities and all iraqis can sign up to support. >> woodruff: colonel mcgregor, how do you see this? we're hearing support to the president there has to be a serious shift before the u.s. would consider anything. >> it's probably a valid idea but i wouldn't hold my breath while i waited for anything like that to emerge in iraq. we just washington civil battalions of the army we spent billions of dollars building essentially broke and ran away from thugs in pickup trucks, sunni islamic fighters, many from syria, but that doesn't bode well for the u.s. to use military power to rush in and rescue this. i don't think much would change on the ground. the second part which peter implied, we're dealing with a shiite, arab, islamist dictatorship in baghdad that is anathema to the entire sunni world in the middle east, arabs and turks. the islamist fighters are working with the sunni tribes to try and destroy the state. they backed by the saudis, emirates and turks who want to see this shiite state go away. how do you resolve that kind of conflict? >> woodruff: i hear you saying on several grounds that the u.s. has to be very careful and maybe shouldn't intervene at all? >> i don't think we should have anything to do with this fight. both sides are dominated by people who are hostile to us, to christians, jews, the united states and israel and europe. >> woodruff: what about that point, his point that you have an army that is basically melting away before the militants, what's there for the u.s. to support? >> two points. one, of course, we have a narrow national interest of our own with regard to terrorism. so to the extent to which we see this i.s.i.l. gain control of that area, nurture terrorists, will not only fight maliki, threaten our interests as the president said, we need to judge when and how to act. that's one point. second, i would slightly differ from my colleague which is if the fall of baghdad is eminent, i think our conditionality may come under pressure and we may have to act because baghdad falling into hands of the i.s.i.l. -- >> woodruff: do you think that's a real possibility? >> i think it is. i don't know the intelligence but you can't dismiss it all together. if it isn't, i think we have time for the conditionality to work. i think maliki wants assistance without conditions. the other community leaders are saying maliki must go, a new government should be formed and then the u.s. should get involved. >> woodruff: well, i do want to stick with the military point but i also don't want to lose the political question and come back to you colonel mansoor. do you think prime minister maliki is going to make the changes to reach out to the sunni leadership in the country that president obama was outlining? >> no, i don't think prime minister maliki will change the way he's conducted business in his two terms in office. he's highly aauthoritarian, sectaan and a divisive figure and i think we need diplomatically to work with all iraqi parties and let them come to some sort of treatment on who should succeed him because i don't think iraq can remain a unitary state under his leadership. the other point i would make is the fall of baghdad is not imminent. there's only several thousands of these i.s.i.l. fighters. baghdad swallows up these armies and would swallow up any i.s.i.l. offensive and will be a place where shiite militias and the army would fight for it and we're hearing iranian army national guards are entering the content, so there's no danger of baghdad falling quickly. >> woodruff: you're saying there's time here that the u.s. has before it has to make a decision? >> that's precisely it. we should make the right decision, not the expedient quick decision. >> woodruff: i want to come back to you, colonel mcgregor, if the u.s. should go in, what and how it should do, given this very complex regional political situation and you just described a few minutes ago. you're saying under no circumstances should the united states get engage, just stand back and watch what happen? >> the israelis have an interesting point. their view, the your opponents are killing each other, absolutely do not interfere and in my judgment that's what's happening on the ground in iraq. iraq doesn't really exist. you have a shiite state which is largely confined to the south which is one of the reasons the shiite arab soldiers in the north ran away, it's not their turf. then you have a sunni arab state that doesn't exist yet but is coming into existence. and then you have a kurdish state no the north. it's increasingly aligned with turkey, but is still independent. >> woodruff: ambassador khalilzad, why is that not an argument for the u.s. to be hands off? >> if it doesn't affect anything of great importance to us, that's a great argument. but given the name of particularly the i.s.i.l., which is a terrorist organization tied with al quaida with not only iraqi ambitions, syrian ambitions, regional ambitions and with some around europe and even americans involved, we have a concern that is legitimate and we need to be focused on that. >> and interests. so we could do counterterrorism operations, a lot fighting between one side or the other, but i want to make one point on diplomacy very quickly, that we need to engage the iranians. if they think maliki is trying to play them against each other, we have to consider getting a new leadership for iraq. >> woodruff: what do you look for next here, colonel? >> i think there will be a lot of diplomatic maneuvering, a lot of maneuvering among the iraqi political parties to see if they can get to the number of votes needed to unseat maliki and establish a new government. meanwhile, i think i.s.i.l. will consolidate its gains and press towards baghdad and the kurds will continue to consolidate their control of the broader kurdish region. >> woodruff: well, no question, we are all keeping a close eye on what's going on and we thank you all three for joining us. colonel peter mansoor, zalmay khalilzad, thank you. >> thank you. >> woodruff: now, how big data is being tracked for commercial purposes. you may not know of-- or have heard much about-- companies known as data brokers. but a recent government report says these companies actually know a lot about you and the information you share online; billions of pieces of data actually. jeffrey brown has the story. >> brown: are you a "mobile mixer"? an "urban scrambler"? do you know what those mean? or that you yourself might be characterized as one or the other? according to a new study by the federal trade commission, large companies called data brokers use such labels as they track our online buying habits, what we do in our free time, religious affiliations and much, much more. in an industry the f.t.c says suffers from a fundamental lack of transparency. it found that one company's database alone had information that included 1.4 billion consumer transactions and more than 700 billion aggregated pieces of data. the f.t.c is calling on congress to take new steps to protect consumers. and its chairwoman, edith ramirez, joins us to talk about it. welcome. first, tell us how this works. who are these data brokers? who are they collecting information for and to what end? >> jeff, thank you for having me here with you. well, these are companies that consumers simply don't know about, but they're companies that collect massive amounts of information about all of us. what is astonishing is the sheer breadth of their data collection and data practices. what's hpening here is that all of us as we shop online, as we browse the web, whenever we post to social networks, we will be leaving the general bread crumbs these companies are scooping up and aggregating also with offline public information. >> brown: well, what's the problem? for many of us, a lot of this data, well, it helps us, right? it sends us to the right places. we use a lot of it ourselves for our shopping habits. what's the problem? >> let me emphasize that the data brokers collect the information, they share the information and sell it to other companies who use it for a variety of purposes. i want to highlight that there are very beneficial purposes for these products but they also raise privacy concerns and that's what we're concerned about at the f.t.c. >> brown: give us an example. i mentioned in the introduction some of these categories and labels. how are they used to harm people? >> so just so that it's clear, what's happening is these companies are aggregating billions of datapoints about nearly every u.s. consumer. they compile extensive profiles about consumers and then they also use data analytics to make certain inferences about us. they then classify and categorize consumers into these various categories, among them mobile mixer, scrambler, and this information is being told to other companies who can use them for various purposes to include marketing purposes. they also use these products for prevention of fraud, for instance. >> but you're suggesting it can also go to insurers and potential employers? >> exactly right. the potential risks are various. your mentioned lack of transparency. consumers don't mow the practices are taking place. first and foremost, we believe it's important for consumers to understand what data brokers are doing. we would like for there to be access to information about these companies and their data practices. we want consumers to have more control over what's taking place and to have an opportunity to opt out of the data collection taking place. >> brown: before i ask you about that, you used the term "potential risks." when your study came out, a spokeswoman from the industry said it was really talking about potential risks, that you hadn't found actual harm. have you documented actual cases where people are harmed? >> so we have not -- we did not identify the result of the study and actual violations of law, but keep in mind, also, that our study was focused on nine particular data brokers that we saw as representatives of a cross section of the industry. so we did not purport to document all of the data practices that the data brokers are engaged in. that's one important qualification. at the same time, what we now understand is that, again, these massive profiles are being generated. they're all being classified and categorized based on our age, our income, socioeconomic status. even our political meetings, religious affiliations, and the question that causes us some deep concern is what are the implications being categorized in that way? there is a potential for these categories to be used in ways that ultimately could be discriminatory or convey other sensitive concerns. >> all right, so you were talking about allowing people to at least know what is being shared and potentially to opt out of that system. how might that work? >> so what we have suggested is that there be a centralized mechanism such as an internet portal through which consumers could access information about the types in the company. consumers don't even know where to begin to understand what types of companies are engaged in the practices, what information has been collected about them. so we would like to see a centralized mechanism consumers could go to and access the individual web sites of the various companies who would in turn then provide information about their specific data collection practices and offer ways that consumers could control that. >> this is the kind of thing you're calling on congress to enact some new regulation. congress generally has known about this for a long time and we haven't seen much action. is there reason to think there would be something now? >> well, i'm hopeful congress will take another look at this issue. there are certain members of congress who are interested and we're hoping to work with them to put forward legislation that would address these issues. at the same time, we're also calling on the companies themselves to undertake certain best practices that we recommend do this on their own, have more regulation, self regulation, and in addition to that, we also at the agency, at the federal trade commission, will continue to monitor the marketplace, and we see violations of the laws in force, we certainly intend to take action. >> brown: in the meantime, what's the consumer to do, and how much are we doing it to ourselves by not paying enough attention? >> that's a terrific point. one thing consumers can do is make sure they're aware of the privacy controls that are available to them, but then there are also certain companies, certain data brokers who have taken steps and good first steps in the direction of providing more transparency about their practices. one particular company, axiom, has taken steps in that regard and, so, consumers can access information and then learn and get a better handle on what's going on there and use available opt-out tools. but as you know, this is an area we think congress should take action in and ultimately we hope to see companies respond to concerns on part of consumers when they learn more about these practices. >> reporter: edith ramirez, chairwoman of the f.t.c., thank you so much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: and to the analysis of shields and brooks. that's syndicated columnist mark shields and "new york times" columnist david brooks. welcome, gentlemen. so our lead story tonight, you heard, david, our expert guest talking about the problem, the huge problems in iraq. how much of -- we know it's a crisis. how much of a problem is it for the united states? >> i think it's a gigantic problem. the idea that's been talked about in the last couple of years in particular, it just becomes one big war tha. the people watching this, the sunni shiites transcend borders and spread all over the region. so the people have been watching the wars on tv and their sectarian anger is growing, then you throw in bad players that could manipulate it one way or the other and could slide over. you have regional powers, turkey, saudis, the iranians, everyons getting involved. what i read, what i hear is people, really, experts, world war i, it's an extremely perilous situation. >> woodruff: hearing, how does one know what the right thing to do for the united states is? >> i don't think anyone knows. i was fascinating by the discussion. because nobody is sure what to do today or tomorrow, most to have the data is about what we did wrong yesterday. did it begin in 2003 when the united states invaded and occupied and dismantled the entire iraqi military, the entire iraqi government, the entire iraqi public sector? then the other book end becomes, well, we did give them a chance, we built them up, we trained them, we supplied them. but in 2011, was that the problem. judy i don't think the fault position comes, let's just bring in air power. you don't just bring in air power. we saw in afghanistan, the people killed in friendly fire. you have to the information. the analytics on the ground, especially with a shifting data fie -- >> woodruff: and the president said no boots on the ground, yet you are saying -- >> well, you need -- the marines and special forces, you need people toto say these are the coordinates. the last thing in the world you want to do is have civilian casualties and deaths and collateral damage. it's a choice of the worst kind. >> woodruff: david, you have john mccain saying the whole national security team needs to be thrown out. the president needs to fire them all and bring a whole different group in. what does the president do? how do you make a decision like this? >> i don't know about throwing them all out but i think mccain's record has been reasonably good in the last four or five years. when the thing happened in 2011, he pretty much warned this would happen. he warned early on that the syrian war would spill over into iraq, which is exactly what's happened. so i do think that the decision he made in 2003 to support the invasion, what he predicted in this country in the last few years and we with're in a bad situation for it. i think we somehow have to get involved. as the panel said, it has to be political. i think they have to commit. the iraqi constitution is a regional, a federal constitution which involves a lot of power. maliki centralized everything. that was a poisonous and terrible decision. it was certainly the case that when u.s. forces were there they could block maliki from being ultra sectarian and simply put tanks in the way so when sunnies and shiites wanted to do something to each other oppressive, they could just get in the way. we'll not do that again, but allowing an organization to take over large swaths in the middle east seems perilous to me. i don't know what we do, but i think the president's posture, which is very forward leaning for him, i think that's the right posture. >> woodruff: mark, are you confident the president has the right people around him to make these decisions? >> i don't know, judy. i certainly think john kerry and chuck hagel bring to him something that has been missing for most deliberations and that is people who know combat, know the price that it involves, who aren't arm chair commandos and talk about it. i mean, john mccain is consistent. in 2003, he had an enormous responsibility and he was an arm chair cheer leader of that war. let's be blunt about it, democrats were cowed and democrats were terrified at that time of accused of being soft on terrorism and they went along. so the congress advocated in 2003 and that law is till on the books, or actuallyo two, the invasion was 2003, it's still on the books. the president still has that authority. >> woodruff: i want to turn to the big explosion, eric ta cant, house majority leader, no one saw this coming. what happened? >> well, you can't buy elections. cantor outspend 2-1, so the limits on money, you can't buy elections. the core story of what caused the defeat and then the implications the people will draw are the two stories. the core story that i think caused the defeat was people wanting respect, feeling cantor had gotten out of touch with the district, too high and mighty and the fact he's spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on steakhouses makes me think they're right. i think he lost touch with the district. the implication is more ideological, which is the republicans cannot touch immigration, the republicans could not compromise and it is simply a fact that the -- a group did a study where they asked republican voters to analyze their own members of congress and republicans voters think their members of congress, republicans, are more centrist than they are. the democrats line up more with members of congress. republican voters can't say that. they're of a mind to fire a certain number and eric cantor is one. >> woodruff: what does that say about the republican party? >> you put the question best. mob predicted it. in as soon as the polls close, the pundit class, two card carrying members here, but we're exceptions, had a total explanation as to why it happened, why eric cantor lost and why dave brat won. and judy, it just strikes me that, mr. churchill said it best, the winners get to write history. that's what dave's campaign was about and he said it's the difference between himself and eric cantor was immigration. he said that's what defined him. the reality is that he won, eric cantor lost. i think david's statement -- he spent a million dollars advertising dave brat's name which dave brat didn't have. i think one fact that comes out of this and was on the hill yesterday is every member is terrified. >> woodruff: in both parties. in both parties but particularly -- imcalibration is dead. let's be honest about it. some people try to put a spin on it. no republican will raise the issue and say we have to cooperate, we have to somehow accommodate and say we can work it out. if anything, eric cantor was accused of being squishy on that subjects. they're terrified on the republican side right now. they just don't know. >> i have been sitting here the last several weeks saying the establishment is winning this, the tea party is weaker. >> woodruff: exactly, we were saying the tea party was weaker. >> nonetheless, when you sake in total the message, tea party. so, to me, it's really a horrible outcome for the republican party, and i think there is overwhelming data on this, that if the republican party does not get right immigration, it's a threshold issue they do not do well in a national election for a long, long time and every day there's more evidence, more survey data and everything, so i think this makes it extremely likely the republicans need to get right some sort of immigration reform. >> i agree 2016 should be a republican year. we have a president in the third term -- second year of the second term -- >> woodruff: historical. historical. his numbers are closer to george bush's than ronde reagan on bill clinton, so it should be a republican year. and the republicans just gave the democrats an enormous advantage for 2016. >> woodruff: with one congressional -- >> if immigration is going to be off -- no, jeb bush is no longer a hot property of 2016 because he is a pro immigration candidate. if that becomes the third rail of republican politics that you can't raise that in the 2016 primaries, then you're going to be an older, wiser, more narrower limited minority party and the democrats got -- >> woodruff: how do you know the nervousness about immigration will last? does this have legs and will stick? >> my instinct is that it will. it's complicated. rand paul, he is welcoming immigration. christie, leading candidates are pro, more comprehensive reform than the vote rejust had. nevertheless this vote underlines what will be evidenced in tow town halls as people are running with a lot of fervor on the anti-immigration or anti-reform side, and it's going to be hard for any candidate especially a whole bunch of them to resist that. >> the message is we come in the night, we travel night, we don't have a big eye and we come upon you and we don't need millions of dollars -- to beat you. >> woodruff: the tea party. and we just beat eric cantor. and the only time the house majority leader ever lost a primary. >> woodruff: does it matter whether they elect one of their own to hold the leadership position in the house of representatives? >> i think the tea party, all due respect, is a party of opposition. it identifies grievances. it's not much of an advocate. >> because i'm plea me, i read dave brat's book, and it's a very bold, good book, by the way. it's very intellectual and very oppositional, very bold, and that's the style we have here. let me just make one point wrapping up hillary clinton. she's had a very mixed weak. the tea party if she's nominee makes it more likely democrats will win, but if she's there and iraq is exploding, that's really bad for her. so it's interesting to see the world from her vantage point. >> woodruff: we're pos postponig hillary clinton till next week. before we go, happy father's day to both of you david and mark. >> thank you, judy. >> woodruff: finally tonight, it is father's day weekend. a good time for a conversation about the changing roles of dads in this country and why there are a rising number of them who stay at home. and for that we go to hari sreenivasan in our new york studios. >> sreenivasan: back in 1989, a little more than one million fathers stayed at home with their children for a variety of reasons. more than two decades later, that number has doubled. in a recent report, the pew research center said it grew to its highest point-- 2.2 million -- in the u.s. in 2010, just after the official end of the great recession. the number has dipped since then, but there are still more dads at home than has traditionally been the case. in fact, fathers now account for 16% of all stay-at-home parents. the reasons for this are a complex mix. we explore that with two people. kim parker who is with the pew research center and scott coltrane, a provost at the university of oregon who has long studied this very subject. he spoke at a recent white house summit on working dads. so, kim, let me start with you. what's the reason behind this surge in the last 20 years? >> there's a variety of reasons. you alluded to the end of the recession and how we saw the number spike to 2.2 million in 2010, and clearly what was going on in part is increases in unemployment, men and fathers having difficulty finding jobs. but the biggest factor in the long-term growth in the number of stay-at-home dads is the growing share of dads who say they're at home primarily to care for their family and children and that's what's been driving this long-term trend from 1989 to the present. >> sreenivasan: so, scott, have we always seen a shift in perception of what it means to stay at home with your child from the '40s and '50s when we had a particular stereotype of who should work and stay at home? >> absolutely. they used to think typically dads would be bread winners and mom would care for kids. it's now tag team parenting and this shift has been going on for decades. now we're seeing the culture catch up. most young men want to be involved in the care taking. most young women want to be involved as bread winners and i think the tw two involved is wht we're seeing, trading off. >> sreenivasan: kim parker, how do we know unemployment is not the primary reason these dads have chosen to stay at home? >> i think that's a major factor and we also know that significant share of fathers who are at home are home because they're disabled. but, again, the growth comes among the growth who say they're home to primarily care for their children and families. in the studies at the pew research center, men and women are striking the right balance between family and work life, and half of dads say they find it difficult to strike the balance and about half of das dads say they prefer to be home with their young children but need to work because they need the income. so a lot of focus of this debate is normally on mothers and mothers trying to balance these things. but our studies suggest especially with the generation of younger fathers they're facing the same types of challenges. >> scott, is there a gap between that preference that men say i would prefer to stay home with my kids but, then, in reality when they're given the choice, that they make the choice to go to work more often than women? >> i think one of the things that constraints me is they feel like they need to be bread winners first. so this story is looking at the market for a whole year and there are still 2 million of them. but there are millions and millions of other dads that other pew studies and surveys show are pitching in more. so i think the combination of doing some work and some childcare is really the normal for some families. >> sreenivasan: is there a difference in how the census measures who's staying home and the primary caregiver. >> it comes up with a number of 200,000 dads, but limit it to children under 15 and dads who specifically say they're home to care for family. now we came up with a broader definition and just wanted to cast the net a little bit wide around we also feel like some of the dads that are home because they're maybe looking for a job or maybe disabled are probably also the primary caregivers in the home so that's why we looked at this broader group. >> sreenivasan: scott coltrane, what about the change in perception, who is the primary caregiver and do we see the change break across different demographic lines, whether ethnic groups or ages? >> there are cost cutting tendencies because we have practical collusions to everyday commands and people's job schedules dictate who can be home when and do what kinds of work. so flexible scheduling and transitioning in and out of the labor force. we're finding other people are more willing to do that than older parents, but the younger parents are more stressed to make more money to make ends meet. so it's a practical solution to the everyday dilemma of how to take care of the kids. we have a set of doubling and tripling in the last 30 years. the studies show the number of single dads tripled, the number of stay at home dads doubled. the amount all men do in terms of housework and childcare doubled and tripled in the last 30 years, so i think we have a fundamental shift. it's no longer stigmatized to be good caring daddies. 95% of new dads bathe and diaper their kids. two-thirds of most dads do more to have the cooking, certainly do more with their kids, do more homework, do more reading to their children and it's all good. the outcomes are really positive for the children. they do better in cool school, more socially well-adjusted, it's a win-win situation. >> sreenivasan: kim parker, how does this break down across ethnic lines? you saw different numbers in communities of colors. >> there is a disproportionate share of stay at home dads who are african-americans and tend to be less educated and lower incomes overall. interestingly, half of the stay-at-home dads as we defined them are actually living in poverty and a higher share stay at home dads are living in poverty than moms because it's often stay at home dads have a spouse that is also not working. it's not necessarily the affluent opt out dad with a wife who's pursuing a lucrative career. when you look at the actual data, it is, you know, the men who are at home versus the men who are working are still struggling more financially. >> sreenivasan: scott, is there a different perception among communities of color? >> i think so. i think one of the things that has been true for many decades is the wage gap between many women is smaller, so african-american families have shared parentin provided the couple lives together with their children, there's always been more sharing. so that's been adaptive, it's been a response to practical realities and so we see this in latino families, too, and studied more sharing, not necessarily gender blending and the kinds of things men and women do, they might do different things, but certainly more ability and willingness to step in, a whole family system and a lot of sharing going on. >> sreenivasan: scott coltrane from university of oregon, kim parker from pew research center, thanks so much. >> thank you. >> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day. president obama ruled out using american ground troops in iraq's growing insurgency but said he would make a decision about what action the u.s. takes in the days ahead. iraq's leading shiite cleric called on iraqis to take up arms and fight the sunni militants sweeping through the country and in world cup soccer news, the netherlands routed the defending champion spain five to one. on the newshour online right now, it's been 50 years since the passage of the landmark legislation that outlawed discrimination based on race, sex, religion and origin. we want to mark the occasion with memories from viewers like you. tell us: do you or someone you know remember when the civil rights act was passed? how did it change your life? you can call our oral history hotline or email us. those details are on our homepage. and we remember a vocal advocate for u.s. veterans. steve robinson, a former army non-commissioned officer was a frequent guest on the newshour over the past decade. on our website you can watch his most memorable appearance when he discussed alerting senior army officers to the systemic problems vets faced getting adequate medical care. steve robinson was 51 years old. all that and more is on our web site, newshours.pbs.org. and a reminder about some upcoming programs from our pbs colleagues. gwen ifill is preparing for washington week, which airs later this evening. here's a preview: >> ifill: so much to discuss tonight. all open questions. what can the u.s. do to stop iraq from falling apart i. in the wake of the eric cantor defeat, is the republican party falling apart? now that bowe bergdahl is back, can he be kept from falling apart? that on washington week, juttedy? >> woodruff: we look at calls to ban the nets used by >> woodruff: tomorrow's edition of pbs newshour weekend looks at calls to ban the nets used by commercial fisherman off the coast of california, following the release of graphic photos of sea life killed after becoming entangled. the fishing industry is pushing back, arguing any ban would put them out of business. here's a brief look at juan carlos fray's report. a warning, it contains some graphic images. >> the coast of california has a wealth and variety of marine life. on beaches south of san francisco, hundreds of elephant seals bask in the sun. sea lions gather on docks in monterrey bay while hump back whawhales, dolphin and shark and other sea life roam the ocean. but these photos of dead sea life caught in the drill nets of commercial fisherman off the coast of california outraged conservationists. >> we're seeing images of the decks filled with these bloody dolphins, these amazing sea turtles, and to literally just be going through hundreds of these images is, you know, makes me sick to my stomach. >> reporter: >> woodruff: and we'll be back, right here, on monday with the latest developments in iraq. that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. have a nice weekend. thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> when i was pregnant, i got more advice than i knew what to do with. what i needed was information i could trust, on how to take care of me and my baby. united healthcare has a simple program that helps moms stay on track with their doctors and get care and guidance they can use before and after the baby is born. simple is what i need right now. >> that's health in numbers, united healthcare. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions. and friends of the newshour. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. erer this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib. check, please, priceline buys on-line restaurant reservation company open table. and shares soar, will the move keep the profit engine growing? inside intel, the stock rockets to a ten-year high on strong demand for corporate personal computers but can the run continue? and full moon friday, it is friday the 13th, but stocks rose and our market expert has a list of stocks she calls good-bye for now. all that and more on "nightly business report" for friday june 13th. good evening, everyone, and welcome. today is friday the 13th and there is a full moon tonight. despite those ominous signs and continued turmoil in iraq, investors werehu

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Samarra , Sala Ad Din , Iraq , Louisiana , Monterrey , Nuevo Leóx , Mexico , Germany , Texas , Afghanistan , Iran , Congo , Turkey , Illinois , Indiana , California , San Antonio , Syria , Oregon , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Ukraine , San Francisco , Kirkuk , At Ta Mim , Thailand , Netherlands , Baghdad , Idaho , Israel , Saudi Arabia , Kerbala , Karbala , Spain , Americans , America , Russian , Iraqis , Iranians , Turks , Saudis , Iranian , Israelis , Ukrainian , Iraqi , Syrian , American , Jeffrey Brown , Peter Roskam , Juan Carlos , Peter Mansoor , Steve Scalise , Bowe Bergdahl , Eric Cantor , George Bush , Raul Labrador , Jeb Bush , Macneil Lehrer , Susie Gharib , Zalmay Khalilzad , Chuck Hagel , Christians Jews , John Kerry , David Petraeus , Judy Woodruff , Kim Parker , Douglas Macgregor , Kevin Mccarthy , Marlin Stutzman , George W Bush , Scott Coltrane , Gwen Ifill , Steve Robinson , Shia Islam , Hari Sreenivasan , John Mccain , Hillary Clinton , Edith Ramirez ,