text:
The Book of Esther
Chapter 1
This is one of the best stories in the Bible, but not because it teaches moral lessons, reveals human goodness, or glorifies the Lord. It's short on all three counts. Instead, it's a great story because it's got sex, subterfuge, violence, and revenge, and four main characters straight out of David Mamet. I'm amazed Esther has never been turned into a movie! Update—Wednesday, May 2: Within 15 minutes of this being posted, readers alerted me to not one but two Esther movies. There's One Night With the King, which was in theaters, briefly, in October 2006 (watch the trailer here). And there's the 1960 film Esther and the King, starring … Joan Collins!
We begin with a jerk. Not merely a jerk, but a vain, egomaniacal, fickle, childish cad. Ahasuerus is emperor of, well, everywhere. Based in Persia, he rules 127 provinces from India to Ethiopia. Notably for our purposes, he rules the Jews, who have been liberated from their Babylonian oppressors and now live throughout the Persian empire.
Soon after he inherits the throne, Ahasuerus decides to hold a six-month-long party in his capital, Shushan (a precursor to the notorious bacchanal the last Shah of Iran held in 1971, a four-day, $100 million blowout feast celebrating the 2,500th anniversary of the Persian empire). The final week of Ahasuerus' party is a never-ending banquet, where, as at Mardi Gras and the Sigma Chi house, "the rule for drinking was, 'no restrictions.' " On the seventh day of the feast, the soused king orders his queen, Vashti, to come and "display her beauty to the partygoers."
What does "display her beauty" mean, you ask? Good question. I don't know! Does he want her merely to be admired from afar? Or lasciviously ogled? Or does he actually expect her to strip for them? It's not clear, and we never find out, because Vashti bravely refuses. Ahasuerus flips out. His ministers tell him that Vashti has not merely insulted her hubby, she has committed a crime against the empire, because now all women will think it's OK to disobey their husbands, and what a mess that will be! "There will be no end of scorn and provocation!"
Egged on by the prime minister, the king orders Vashti banished from his presence. He concludes, hilariously, that their divorce will improve marriages nationwide: From now on, "all wives will treat their husbands with respect." So ends our setup, one of the most entertaining chapters in the whole Bible.
Chapter 2
Playing the role of royal pimps, Ahasuerus' ministers assemble all the beautiful young virgins in the empire, placing them under the care of the emperor's top eunuch. This passage includes a fabulous line, one that reminds us just how little has changed in 2,500 years. The ministers instruct the eunuch to treat the girls right. "Let them be provided with their cosmetics." When the virgins arrive at the harem, they don't go immediately to Ahasuerus' bed. Rather, they prepare for an entire year! "Six months with oil of myrrh and six months with perfumes and women's cosmetics."
It's the first Miss Universe pageant, complete with a tiara as the prize! (Plus one sleazy Persian monarch.) And your new Miss Universe, 483 B.C., is … Miss Shushan, Esther Cohen!
(Frankly, it doesn't surprise me that Esther turns out to be the most stunning girl in the empire. Not to reveal my biases, but have you seen how great looking the Jewish women of that region are? Readers, I married one!)
Esther is an orphan but has been adopted by her elderly cousin Mordecai. They're descended from the Jews exiled from Jerusalem by the Babylonians.
The emperor makes Esther his queen. At Mordecai's urging, Esther "passes," not revealing herself as a Jew. (Passing is a key theme of the Bible and of Jewish tradition—the fear always being that non-Jews with power will take it out on Jews, which they usually do. Abraham hid his identity. Moses' mother hid his, of course. And there are incidents I am forgetting. Please remind me.)
Loitering outside the palace gates, Mordecai overhears two eunuchs plotting to assassinate Ahasuerus. (And who can blame them? If someone eunuched you, wouldn't you want some payback?) He tells Esther, who reports it to her husband, who has the plotters impaled on stakes.
Chapter 3
The king appoints a new prime minister, Haman. (Boo! Hiss!) Everyone else in the court bows to Haman, but Mordecai refuses. It doesn't say this, but I presume that Mordecai won't bow because Jews are supposed to bow only to God. Is that right? (Question: If that is the case, how does Mordecai get away with not bowing to the king?) The detestable Haman is "filled with rage" at Mordecai and plots to annihilate all the empire's Jews. Haman casts lots to determine the date of the massacre. (Lots is purim in Hebrew, which is why the holiday inspired by Esther is called Purim.) Now Haman needs to get the king on his side. Haman tells Ahasuerus that his empire is filled with Jews who don't obey the king's laws and follow their own. The king mustn't tolerate such dissent.
What's curious is that Haman is right. From Persia to Spain to the United States, Jews have always set ourselves apart from the societies where we live, following our own customs and laws (though also the laws of the host nation, too). That separation is what has allowed Jews to maintain their faith and culture through 2,500 years of diaspora. The question, of course, is what conclusion you should draw from that separation. In places with wise rulers, leaders recognized that Jewish separation posed no threat, because Jews contributed so much to the nation. But in other places, rulers exploited Jewish separateness as a threat and an opportunity. Jews could be scapegoated and attacked, and their difference treated as a menace to what should be a homogenous society. (See Inquisition Spain, or Nazi Germany.) The story of Esther turns out to be a lesson in the virtue of diversity over sameness.
The king, an easily led fool, listens to Haman for about 15 seconds and agrees that Jewish extermination is a great idea. (Then, presumably, he immediately goes back to what really interests him—playing video golf or fondling the latest batch of virgins.)
Haman dispatches orders across the empire, under the king's signature, to "destroy, massacre, and exterminate all the Jews, young and old, children and women, on a single day." That tripling of verbs—"destroy, massacre, and exterminate"—is incredibly powerful, emphasizing the existential menace of Haman. Remember that there were no Jews anywhere else in the world then. If you wiped out the Jews in the Persian empire, you wiped them out, period. It's not hyperbole to compare Hitler to Haman or Haman to Hitler.
Here's a fascinating verse. When the decree is announced in Shushan, the king and Haman sit down for a celebratory dinner, but "the city of Shushan was dumfounded." Presumably, this is because Shushan itself has a huge Jewish population. It must be the New York of Persia.
Chapter 4 through Chapter 6
Jews mourn their impending destruction, slated for the 13th day of the month of Adar. But they don't revolt! Why?
Mordecai asks Esther to go to the king and intercede. She quavers. She tells him that Ahasuerus has not seen her in a month, and she can't go to him on her own, because the penalty for seeing the king without having been summoned is death. Mordecai tells her she's going to die anyway if Haman isn't stopped—her position won't protect her—so she has to petition Ahasuerus. She asks the Jews of Shushan to fast on her behalf, then agrees to take her life in her hand and visit the king unbidden. (Pause to note the Vashti/Esther parallel. Vashti risks her life by refusing to go to the king when summoned. Esther risks hers by going to the king when she has not been summoned.)
Esther shows up in the throne room. Ahasuerus, rather than chopping off her head, is thrilled to see her—she's a stone-cold Persian fox, after all—and says she can have whatever she wants, even half the kingdom. She asks only that the king invite Haman to a feast. At the feast, she requests that Haman and the king return for another feast the next day. Haman is delighted at the royal favor, until he runs into Mordecai, who again refuses to bow. Haman goes home in a sour mood and tells his wife that Mordecai is spoiling his good time. His wife and friends, who just want to cheer up gloomy old Haman, tell him to erect a 75-foot-high stake and have Mordecai impaled on it the next day. "Then you can go gaily with the king to the feast." This puts a spring in Haman's * step and a smile in his heart!
That same night, the king has a hard time falling asleep, so he asks his servants to read to him from "the annals"—the history book/Congressional Record/New York Times where all key imperial events are recorded. (Smart move by the king: There's no better sleeping pill than having someone read a history book to you.) His reader opens the book to the story of Mordecai stopping the eunuchs' plot. The king is dismayed to hear that Mordecai has received no reward for his good deed. Haman happens to arrive at the palace at this moment to get a bright and early start on the impaling. The king summons Haman and asks him the best way a king can honor a man. In a wonderful case of mistaken identity, Haman assumes that Ahasuerus wants to honor him and says that the king should put that man in royal robes and crown, and parade him through town on a horse. The king then orders Haman to do this … for Mordecai! Haman gulps, but does it.
Chapter 7 and Chapter 8
Esther holds her second feast for Haman and the king. Ahasuerus again asks what he can do for her. This time she pleads for her life and the lives of her fellow Jews, who are scheduled for extermination. The king—who is either amnesiac, or criminally inattentive, or a moron—doesn't seem to remember that he himself ordered the slaughter of the Jews, since he exclaims indignantly, "Who is he and where is he who dared to do this?" Esther replies—and you can imagine her pointing her bejeweled finger—"The adversary and the enemy … is this evil Haman." Haman cringes in terror! The king storms out of the room. Haman begs Esther to save him. In a marvelous moment—again, so cinematic!—Haman lies next to Esther on her couch and pleads for his life. At this moment, the king returns to the room and assumes Haman is trying to rape her. "Does he mean … to ravish the queen in my own palace?"
It's curtains for Haman, as you can imagine. They impale him on the stake meant for Mordecai. The king gives all of Haman's property to Esther, who hands it over to Mordecai. The king names Mordecai as his new prime minister. With the king's OK, Mordecai cancels the order to slaughter the Jews and tells them they can defend themselves if they are attacked. All of Shushan celebrates the reprieve.
If it ended there, the story of Esther would be a perfect set piece, with unambiguous moral clarity. But it doesn't. The first dark hints come in the last verse of Chapter 8, which says that many Persians now "professed to be Jews, for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them."
Chapter 9 and Chapter 10
And then it turns very ugly, very fast. On the day Haman scheduled for the Jewish extermination, the 13th of Adar, Jews muster throughout the empire and attack their enemies. What's troubling is that the Jewish assault is not in self-defense. There is no indication that the Hamanites actually tried to attack them. Quite the contrary, as the last verse of Chapter 8 suggests, they seem to have been thoroughly cowed by Mordecai's new power. Rather, the Jews are taking vengeance on their already defeated enemy, killing more than 75,000 people in a one-day spasm. (One verse vaguely suggests it was not simply mass slaughter: The Jews "fought for their lives," indicating their enemy was armed. But given that the book doesn't report any Jewish casualties, it's pretty clear the fight was one-sided.)
It gets worse. After the first day's killing, Ahasuerus comes to Esther and tells her that 500 people have been killed in Shushan alone. He asks her what she wants now. The bloodthirsty queen says it's not enough. The Jews of Shushan must be given a second day to kill. Moreover, she wants all of Haman's 10 sons impaled on stakes. The king says OK, and the massacre continues. The day after the murders, the Jews celebrate "with feasting and merrymaking," and Purim is declared a Jewish holiday for all time.
I'm from a family of lax Jews, and I'm sure our Purim celebrations weren't quite up to code. Even so, I am shocked at the difference between the Purim story I heard in synagogue and the Purim story in the Bible. We certainly celebrated the death of Haman at synagogue, but I don't recall hearing about the orgy of violence that followed. The 75,000 killed, Esther's insistence on a second day of slaughter, the vindictive impaling of Haman's sons—all that was left out of the kid-friendly Purim story I was raised on. Those horrifying acts make Purim a much more ambiguous, and troubling, holiday.
Thoughts on Blogging the Bible? Please e-mail David Plotz at email@example.com. (E-mail may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)
Correction, May 3, 2007: Originally, this passage mistakenly called Haman by Mordecai's name. (Return to the corrected sentence.)


text:
Referral Line: 484-628-HELP
Reading Hospital: 484-628-8000
Toll Free: 1-866-988-4377
Reading Health System Menu
Request an Appointment
Health Library
An electroencephalogram (EEG) is a test that measures the electrical activity of the brain. Your child may need this test to check for seizures or other nervous system conditions. Small, round discs with wires (electrodes) are placed on the scalp during the test. The electrodes aren't harmful to your child. An EEG often takes about 60 to 90 minutes. If a longer EEG is needed, you'll be given more information from your child's healthcare provider.
Follow all instructions given by the technologist and your child's healthcare provider to prepare your child for the test:
Normally, an EEG is done while your child is awake. Sometimes recording must also be done while your child is drowsy or asleep. In these cases, you'll be asked to reduce the amount of sleep your child gets before the test. This may mean your child has to stay up later and get up earlier than normal. Sometimes, a flashing light (stroboscope) might be used for a few minutes during the EEG recording.
Don't use any hairstyling products (such as oils) in your child's hair before the test. Any hair extensions or braids should also be removed. These may interfere with the placement of the electrodes during the test.
If your child is taking any medicines, let the provider know before the test. Some medicines may need to be stopped if they can interfere with test results.
For your child's safety and the success of the test, let the technologist know if your child:
Takes any medicines
Has a history of seizures
Has any health problems
An EEG is done by a trained technologist. During the test, the electrical activity of your child's brain is recorded on a computer. In addition, a video camera may be used to record your child's physical activity. You can stay with your child in the testing room. Your child can bring a favorite toy, such as a stuffed animal, for comfort.
The technologist begins by placing the electrodes on your child's scalp. A special glue, paste, or water-based gel is used to help keep the electrodes in place. The glue's smell can be very strong and unpleasant. But it's not painful.
During the test, your child lies down on a hospital bed. If your child is drowsy or asleep for part of the test, the technologist may actively wake your child at a later point.
The technologist may ask your child to do some simple commands, such as the following:
Open and close your eyes.
Breathe fast and deep (hyperventilate). (For young children, blowing on a pinwheel may help with this task.)
Sense a bright flashing light through closed eyes.
Go to sleep.
If you notice signs that your child may be having a spell or seizure, tell the technologist right away.
Here is what to expect:
Once the test is complete, the electrodes are removed. Any glue, paste, or gel is cleaned from the scalp.
Unless told not to, your child can return to their normal routine.
Schedule a follow-up appointment with your child's healthcare provider to review the results of the test.
Let your provider know if symptoms or seizures worsen after the test.
Many hospitals have people trained in helping children cope with their medical care or hospital experience. These people are often called child life specialists. Check with your child's healthcare provider if child life programs or other similar services are available for your child. There are also things you can do to help your child get ready for a test or procedure. How best to do this depends on your child's needs. Start with the tips below:
Use short and simple words to describe the test to your child and why it's being done. Younger children tend to have a short attention span, so do this just before the test. Older children can be given more time to understand the test in advance.
Tell your child what to expect in the hospital during the test. For instance, you could talk about who will be doing the test and what the hospital room will look like.
Make sure your child knows which body parts will be involved in the test.
As best you can, describe how the test will feel. For instance, an electrode may be placed on the skin. The electrode is round and may feel sticky.
Let your child ask questions. Answer these questions truthfully. Your child may feel nervous or afraid. They may even cry. Let your child know that you'll be nearby during the test.
Use play when telling your child about the test, if appropriate. With younger children, this can include role-playing with a child's favorite toy or object. With older children, it may help to read books or show pictures of what happens during the test.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
11/2/14 - Baltimore, MD - Multiple Fires
A wind-whipped warehouse fire on the city's east side rained embers down into a nearby neighborhood sparking several dwelling fires. Firefighters responding to Kirk Avenue and Curtain Street for a building fire arrived with a fully involved, 4 story, vacant warehouse and quickly called for a second alarm. The side walls of the building collapsed early into the fire resulting in large embers being carried into occupied neighborhoods. Dwelling fires broke out in the 1500 block E. North Street, 1600 block E. Lanvale St, 1800 block N. Bond St, and 1700 block E. Preston Streets. On Bond Street, firefighters were hitting hot spots when they began to notice smoke and embers coming from the rear of row homes directly behind them. Upon investigating, companies found heavy fire on the second floor rear of a vacant. At least one of the dwelling fires went second alarm and multiple buildings were involved in most of the incidents. Companies from all over the city converged to the area including assistance from Baltimore, Anne Arundel, and Howard Counties who primarily covered city stations.Read More


text:
NEW YORK, Oct. 13, 2013 — -- A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday morning, October 13, 2013 on ABC News is below.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Good morning. Welcome to This Week.
Courting disaster.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R) OHIO: I don't want to put anything on the table. I don't want to take anything off the table.
STEPHANOPOULOS: With the default deadline just four days away (inaudible) Washington stuck and the American economy your money hangs in the balance. It's up to the Senate to strike a dramatic last minute deal. Will House Republicans rally or revolt? And if we go over the cliff, what happens next.
This morning, all the breaking details about the high stakes negotiations from congress to the White House.
Then, NSA leaker Edward Snowden resurfaces and Hollywood takes on Julian Assange.
JULIAN ASSANGE, WIKILEAKS FOUNDER: This is information the world needs to know.
STEPHANOPOULOS: The WikiLeaks founder responds live from his London hideout.
All that plus the powerhouse roundtable. And that Nobel Prize stunner right here this morning.
ANNOUNCER: From ABC News, This Week with George Stephanopoulos starts now.
STEPHANOPOULOS: All of you are telling us Washington's never been worse and all of the evidence coming in this week is proving that point. Government now shut down for almost least two weeks. In just four days, America faces the risk of default. That's never happened before.
And right now, hopes for a deal to avert that catastrophe rest on two Senate leaders who haven't always been on speaking terms.
We're going to examine all the angles and consequences of this showdown this morning starting with ABC's chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl.
And John, the president's talks with House Speaker John Boehner collapsed Friday and bipartisan talks in the Senate collapsed yesterday. And now the Senate leader negotiation is the only game in town.
JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: That's right, George. It is the only game in town. And it is a game that is not going well.
The two men are trying to craft an agreement that would keep the government open and postpone default until January 31. And Republicans have given up all the demands -- or at least Mitch McConnell and the Republican leader in the Senate have given up all of the demands that led to this crisis. Major changes to Obamacare are not even on the table right now.
But the talks broke down yesterday, over Democratic demands from Harry Reid to increase spending. Reid wants to end most of those spending cuts that were put in place under the sequester as part of this deal. And George, keep in mind, that as these two men hold the key to whether or not this is solved or not, that these two have seen their relations deteriorate so much, they have barely been on speaking terms.
STEPHANOPOULOS: At the same time, Senator McConnell is sending out a lot of signals that he wants a deal.
KARL: There's no question, going into these talks yesterday, McConnell was already preparing for what he knew to be a backlash from the Tea Party Republicans have given up in this. He gave an interview with the local newspaper in Lexington, Kentucky, saying that he wants a come-together moment with Democrats saying as much as I would rather have a Republican president and would rather be the majority leader of the Senate, I am willing to work with the government we have -- not the one we wish we had.
So McConnell is ready to crave in on most things, George, but I don't think he is ready to give in on spending cuts.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And no talks scheduled yet for today.
OK, Jon Karl, thanks very much.
That's where things stand in Washington
Let's get more on the economic fallout from our chief business and economic correspondent Rebecca Jarvis. Rebecca, Wall Street jumped several hundred points Thursday and Friday when they thought a deal was coming. Any sense of how these latest developments are going to go down?
REBECCA JARVIS, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: There's a lot more downside risk this morning, George, than there is upside potential. And really what was saw last week is market cheering on the news that House Republicans had put something on the table as far as the debt limit was concerned. Even though it was short term the markets like that. Now, when you look at the upside ahead of the October 17 deadline, you have about 1 percent potential for upside. 1 percent upside potential in the markets if it looks like a deal is getting done.
But the downside potential is much more dramatic.
Ahead of the October 17 deadline, we could see the markets drop 2 percent, even 3 percent, if it looks like a deal isn't getting done. But again, George, this isn't just a matter of what happens ahead of October 17, October 17 is D-Day.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And after that all bets are off?
JARVIS: After that, all bets are off. Every bank on Wall Street has been gaming this out. There's a war room set up. They're thinking about their exposure to this. And we could see a very disorderly decline in the markets then. We're talking 500, even 600 points of downside as far as the Dow is concerned.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Back to the days of 2007, 2008. Rebecca Jarvis, thanks very much.
Now from the Congress, three very distinct perspectives. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who has been in the middle of talks to develop a bipartisan solution, Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison co-chair of the House progressive caucus. And Republican congressman Raul Labrador, a leader among House conservatives.
And Senator Graham, let me begin with you. You were working on a deal with Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, it seemed to collapse yesterday, shot down by the Democratic leader Harry Reid. Right now, is there any deal that could get through both houses of congress and signed by the president?
GRAHAM: I don't see one. If you break the spending caps you're not get any Republicans in the Senate.
And here's what I'm worried about a deal coming out of the Senate, that a majority of Republicans can't vote for in the House, that really does compromise Speaker Boehner's leadership. And after all this mess is over, do we really want to compromise John Boehner as leader of the House? I don't think so.
So I'm not going to vote for any plan that I don't think can get a majority of Republicans in the House, understanding that defunding Obamacare and delaying for a year is not a realistic possibility now.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's a pretty high bar, Senator Graham.
Let me bring that up to Congressman Labrador. Here, you've been insisting that there has to be changes in the Affordable Care Act in order to pass any kind of a CR or any kind of a debt limit extension. But the Democrats have been absolutely clear that's not going to happen. You don't have a majority for that.
LABRADOR: You know, it seems strange. And we're four days away from breaching the debt ceiling. We gave the president a pretty good offer. The offer was we would extend the debt ceiling without any requirement for six weeks. That's so we can continue negotiations on the debt and then we can continue also negotiation on the continuing resolution, the actual budgeting and the actual spending bill that we need to do.
And I don't see why the president is not accepting that and not working with us. I think it's been very difficult to work with him. He wouldn't come to the table to negotiate. Now that he's coming to the table, he rejected two offers. I thought that the House offer was a pretty reasonable one. And I'm surprised that he also rejected the Senate offer.
ELLISON: Well, I mean, it's very simple. We can negotiate and talk all we want to after we reopen the government. As a matter of fact, we can open the government and can have any kind of discussions they want over anything they want. But we got to reopen the government and we've got to pay America debts.
Let's not forget, George, this whole thing started when Republicans said we want to defund, delay and repeal the Affordable Care Act which gives millions of Americans insurance reform and access to health care, including about 200,000 in Idaho.
And now they're saying that unless we stop all that, then they're not going to open the government and that's not realistic.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring that to Senator Graham. You just recognize -- you say that that is unrealistic, Senator Graham, to expect any changes now...
ELLISON: The senator is right.
STEPHANOPOULOS: ...in Obamacare. So how can you convince those House Republicans like Congressman Labrador right here, that there is going to have to have to be some kind of an agreement that doesn't include that and basically gives Democrats, you know, it might be the hard politics right now, most of what they want?
GRAHAM: Well, at the end of the day, I really do believe that the Democrats have moved the goalpost twice in the Senate. They -- there is a political -- we're in a free-fall as Republicans, but Democrats are not far behind. And after listening to all of us talk now probably understand why 60 percent Americans want to vote all incumbents out.
To my colleagues in the House, on both sides and to my friends in the Senate, we're ruining both institutions.
So, it is unrealistic to expect us to defund or delay Obamacare by shutting the government down.
But the fight on Obamacare is far from over. After this mess is behind us Obamacare will be a liability for Democrats and the government shutdown we can survive if we're smart.
Paul Ryan is working on a plan that could start in the House, that I think would be involving very good government proposals to avert future shutdowns, to do some things for Obamacare that needs to be done in terms of correcting the problem. And quite frankly putting every member of congress in the same plan on the same terms as all Americans.
I would hope that would come from the House.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring that to Congressman Ellison, that particular plan. Because Congressman Ryan has talked about perhaps relieving some of the pain of the sequester in return for entitlement reforms. Can Democrats accept that?
ELLISON: Well, it's all about, you know, the details. Let's see, because we cannot say -- I cannot support saying that we're going to diminish and lower, say, Social Security in exchange for, I don't know, anything. These folks who exist on that are already on meager amounts of income, and so we're not going to inflict more pain on them.
But, look, it's all in the mix. Let's reopen the government. Let's pay America's debts. And I'm open to discuss anything any Republican wants to talk about, but it will be us giving and taking and them giving and taking, not a situation like we have now, which is we will stop inflicting pain on America if you get rid of health care which brings insurance reform and access to millions of Americans. We can't do that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman Labrador, if a deal passes the Senate that does open up the government again, extends the debt limit for several months, but it's not the kind of deal that a majority of Republicans that you could even support, will there be retaliation against Speaker Boehner from House conservatives if he schedules that vote?
LABRADOR: I don't think so. First of all, whatever passes the House of Representatives is going to have the majority of House.
But listen to what Keith just said. He wants us to open the government, reopen the government. He says that he wants us to go ahead and vote on the debt ceiling. But he's unwilling to talk about what he's willing to negotiate on. He's unwilling to tell you what things he's going to be working on. Remember...
ELLISON: Because it's your job, Raul.
LABRADOR: No. Remember when the president said he was for chained CPI. Every Democrat in Congress said that he was...
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's on Social Security...
LABRADOR: ...on Social Security. Every single senator says that they wouldn't do it, every Democratic senator.
This is the problem that we have. Any time we talk about entitlement reforms, the Democrats say that they will only do it if we raise taxes. Every time we talk about the real spending problem -- and this is all an issue of fairness -- if you look at Obamacare the president and his administration have given exemptions to their friends, to businesses, and all we're asking is to give the same exemption to the American people. I don't think that's...
ELLISON: We can talk about all these things after we reopen the government and pay America's debts.
There are things we can do to improve, not defund, delay and repeal, but improve the Affordable Care Act.
And there are things that I would propose that we do to improve even so-called entitlement reform -- actually these are earned benefits. What if we negotiated drug prices as opposed to just locked in and let the pharmaceutical industry charge what they want? That's something I could do.
There are a number of things that we could do, but we cannot do it under the gun as we are now.
LABRADOR: We just offered you a six-week extension of the debt limit.
ELLISON: Six weeks is no good.
ELLISON: -- (Inaudible) six weeks? You want to do this again in six weeks?
LABRADOR: So what you want is -- you want to get everything you want and then you say that you (inaudible).
STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to take one final question to Senator Graham.
You know, this is the --
GRAHAM: It looks like we're almost there.
STEPHANOPOULOS: (Inaudible) Democrats and Republicans right there, but (inaudible) --
GRAHAM: I can feel it coming together.
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- fair amount of tension between Senate Republicans and House Republicans. I was struck by this tweet put out by the congressional correspondent for the "National Review," Robert Costa.
He said, "The political dynamic now between House Rs and Senate Rs is tense. Senate Rs feel like Cantor asking them to "stand strong" is a middle finger."
Has it gotten that bad?
GRAHAM: Well, the truth is, we started down the road with unrealistic expectations. The government has shut down; ObamaCare is still up but not running very well.
What breaks my heart is for the last 12 days, you have had a complete meltdown of the portal called ObamaCare; the whole system is just not working. And we're overshadowing how badly ObamaCare has been rolled out.
But as between the House and the Senate, we really do share a common goal of trying to replace and repeal ObamaCare over time. We never had the leverage through the shutdown to repeal or replace. That was unrealistic.
Our Democratic friends keep moving the goalpost in the Senate, thinking they're winning. But my belief is that Paul Ryan should lead this effort with John Boehner to pass something out of the House that doesn't delay or defund, but would be good government. That's the best thing for the Republican Party and for the country.
But as between House and Senate Republicans, the sooner this is over, the better for us, guys.
And to our Democratic friends, you own ObamaCare and it's going to be the political gift that keeps on giving.
So the shutdown will be old news next year; ObamaCare's faults will be front and center in 2014 if we don't screw this up.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That will have to be the last word this morning.
Gentlemen, thank you all --
ELLISON: Thank you, George.
Thanks, Raul.
LABRADOR: Thank you.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Those interviews just moments ago.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Now to the roundtable: Peggy Noonan from "The Wall Street Journal;" David Plouffe, former senior adviser to President Obama, now at Bloomberg Television; Dan Senor, former Bush administration official, cofounder of the Foreign Policy Initiative; and Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist from "The New York Times" and Princeton.
Welcome to all of you.
And, Peggy, let me begin you, Senator Graham didn't sugar-coat it all, said they're ruining both institutions. Yet, there doesn't seem to be a way out.
PEGGY NOONAN, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": Yes, it is fascinating that nobody seems to know where this thing goes and how it ends. I mean, it is a crisis; normally people have a sense of it.
I think Lindsey Graham was very correct when he said we will all be better off and the Republicans will be better off when this particular shutdown ends. I think, look, people don't like these things. They like it when government works. Both parties suffer when stuff like this happens. But the essential point that nobody knows where this goes is the great mystery of this battle.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And we're getting so close, Paul Krugman. And Republicans do seem to be trying to negotiate, led by Mitch McConnell, terms of surrender. But Democrats not willing to give at least at this point even much of a fig leaf.
PAUL KRUGMAN, ECONOMIST: Yes. First of all, I think it's actually kind of important that we don't know that it's exactly October 17th. So if we wake up Thursday morning and they haven't defaulted yet, that was a false alarm.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the (inaudible) could also hit before October 17th.
KRUGMAN: Yes, probably not, I think.
But it probably runs -- it may well run a few more days. So but the point is, it's very close. We're very close to the edge.
The Democrats, the thing that you get, always from them, is their basic principle is we do not give anything under threat of extortion. Nothing -- and of course the Republicans want a fig leaf and that fig leaf has to involve, we got something for our extortion.
And that is much more than the details of the budget are its stumbling block. It is that whatever happens, the Democrats say, we -- you lift the extortion threat and we negotiate. But as long as the debt ceiling is still in play, as long as the government shutdown is still a condition for other stuff, it's not a deal.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And Dan Senor, you heard a lot of talk about Paul Ryan. You have been a close adviser to Paul Ryan, the congressman, former vice presidential candidate. And his experience this week, I think, points at the dilemma that everyone's facing.
He comes forward with a plan that is really unacceptable to Democrats, completely unacceptable to Democrats, yet he gets hammered by his own side.
DAN SENOR, CO-FOUNDER OF THE FOREIGN POLICY INITIATIVE: Right. He gets hammered in the blogosphere, a little bit on talk radio. But actually House conservatives in the House Republican conference have been behind him, because of what he's essentially saying, is he's calling the president's bluff.
He says, look, we need to get through this period, Mr. President. We need to extend the debt ceiling, get through this period. Let's agree on reforms that you have been for, Medigap reform, means testing Medicare beneficiaries, increasing contributions of federal employees.
These are all proposals that were in the president's fiscal year 2014 budget. You say you want these things; you say you want to do real reforms that can save hundreds of billions of dollars. It's not as massive a savings as Paul would have preferring (inaudible) packages he's introduced in the past. But he's telling the House Republicans, let's call the president's bluff and try to get something done.
STEPHANOPOULOS: David Plouffe, of course you worked closely with President Obama for many years. He seems convinced at this point that actually the consequences of negotiating are even more severe than the consequences of actual default, does he really mean that?
DAVID PLOUFFE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, obviously, he takes the threat of default enormously seriously. But I think after what we went through in 2011, we got this close to default, and he doesn't want to do this again. No president should have to do this again. We have got to break this pattern.
I do think ultimately there's probably a deal here, but we've got to take the threat of default off the table and reopen the government. Can we do some things on long-term entitlement reforms and things to help the economy (inaudible) tax reform? I think we can. The question is right now, I do think there's a possibility of something coming out of the Senate that would get 70-75 votes, but if Boehner insists on doing this with most of his caucus, I'm not sure the Tea Party is capable of reopening government or not defaulting right now.
PLOUFFE: I'm deeply concerned about this. I think the notion that somehow this is going to be easily solved this week is completely false.
NOONAN: My son said, I have been writing this; it's just what I think: Republicans made a mistake. They picked a fight. They had no strategy, they had no endgame, they had no plan. That's what it is, it was a mistake.
That having been said, I think the president has made countermistakes, not only in the famous stories of the things that were forcibly shut down in the shutdown, and all that stuff, but his -- the sense he has communicated that, hey, I'm not having a conversation, we're not having negotiations.
Presidents have to negotiate on debt limits. They have to own it. We have all seen; we've worked in White Houses. We have seen presidents do this. You can call what the other side does to you extortion. What it really is, is an argument and a deal and at the end, you trade some horses and do your best.
KRUGMAN: Nothing like this has ever happened before. All of the alleged former examples here, I actually looked at them. They turn out to be either -- there was a budget deal that included a debt ceiling raise. But the debt ceiling wasn't a hostage, or once -- once -- Tip O'Neill held up the debt ceiling for one day, more as symbolism.
There was never before a case where one party pushed the U.S. government to the edge of default, demanding concessions in return.
So to every attempt to make this sound like business as usual, it's not. This is something completely out of the previous experience.
NOONAN: Paul, it is more heightened but it is still part of business as usual, because it takes place within the context of an American president having to deal with the reality around him. And the opposite party, having to deal with the fact that he has the presidency, he has the executive, make a deal.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And there's a political reality here as well, pretty striking, Paul, coming out of your paper this week, "The Wall Street Journal," NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, I want to go through some of the numbers right here, shows the Republican Party taking the brunt of the blame for (inaudible), 53 percent blame the Republicans.
The view of the Republican Party, 24 percent positive right now. According to the pollsters of "The Wall Street Journal" the lowest they've ever recorded, 24 percent positive. Only 14 percent of the country thinks we're going in the right direction right now and as Lindsey Graham cited early, 60 percent of the country would replace every single member of Congress.
So Dan Senor, as Lindsey Graham said, everyone's falling but Republicans taking a far greater hit, don't they have to figure out a way to end this dynamic?
SENOR: Absolutely. There's no doubt that this damaging to the Republican brand.
That said, a year from now, this will have been long resolved and I don't think voters will be talking about this shutdown and the dysfunction. What people will be talking about is the failed implementation of ObamaCare.
There are very few House seats that are really in play. There's like a tiny percentage of Republican House members that are in districts that President Obama won. There are six Senate seats, Democratic Senate seats that need to be defended that Mitt Romney won by more than 10 percent.
So, the field, both in the House and the Senate, is much more favorable to Republicans. I think this is a bad moment for Republicans. I think it will pass. I think the feel, the history of the party out of the White House winning midterms, combined with the failed implementation of ObamaCare --
KRUGMAN: I want to say something about that for a moment. The ObamaCare thing will also be long past. They messed up the software for the federal version of it. But we have the exchanges working just fine in many states, which means it's fixable and it will be fixed.
California has a perfectly well functioning exchange, which is running itself. If you can do it for 30 million people, you can do it for 300 million.
So, Obama -- that will be -- Obamacare will be working fine...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me pick up another thread of what you just pointed out, because when I look at these deals being negotiated right now, a four-month extension of the government funding resolution, a six-month extension of the debt limit. David Plouffe, I look at that and say this is not going to be over from a year from now.
If you extend the debt limit six months predicated on long-term budget negotiations, aren't we going to be back in exactly the same place six months from now?
PLOUFFE: The nightmare just keeps recurring.
And let's look what the House proposal? It's essentially it was changes in Medicare to extend the debt ceiling for six weeks so we can completely destroy the economy around the holiday season. It makes no sense.
And we got to remember, we're already at Republican budget levels. We are already operating at Republican budget levels. And this was not a budget discussion, Peggy, this was -- they wanted to inject health care into the debate. We've never seen that before.
But I think these numbers are damaging in the long term for Republicans. I think you have to understand, they're already facing near fatal democratic problems right now and you add this into the mix here, you've got suburban women, a lot of middle class voters outside of the south, are really souring on the Republican Party.
And so I think for their politics this has to get over. But listen, America needs a functioning (inaudible) -- but a functioning Republican Party again. And I think you're seeing in the Senate with Republican governors that sense of frustration really growing. And hopefully those more common sense people who want to govern not destroy the government will have their voices raised.
NOONAN: The governors are key, I've got to tell you. Everywhere you go among Republicans, they start talking about what's happening in Washington in the Senate, the House and then they go, our governors are great. And indeed there's much excitement there. And I think the future of the party, 2016 is there.
Paul, I've got to tell you, I don't think I disagree with your point on Obamacare, of course. I think for the next year as Dan said, it's going to be a big superating wound. There's too much connected to it that is going to be a constant grinding tension. One is this congressional thing where congress passes things, but they get special benefits and the American people don't get them. You think it...
KRUGMAN: That's really not true.
But the main point is, software -- I mean, a software glitch.
SENOR: It's more than software.
They have stitched together web platforms for the Department of Justice, Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Homeland Security in order to make this enrollment work. It's a technology disaster.
The architect of the website said that if March, that we'll be lucky if this thing doesn't look like a third world experience.
KRUGMAN: Right, so they messed up. The thing is, again...
KRUGMAN: California, a state with more than 30 million people, a state with 10 percent of the whole U.S. population, has a perfectly functioning exchange, that says this is doable. That says that they will fix it.
SENOR: To David's point on the Republican brand, the changing demographics, again, I think the House will stay in Republican hands. I think it's a toss-up in terms of where the Senate winds up in 2014.
If you look at 2016, you look at the kinds of people thinking about running, Chris Christie, is going to have a double-digit win in his reelection in New Jersey next month. I think you would agree with that. Susan Martinez, 60 percent approval rating, governor of New Mexico. (inaudible) rating in Ohio. Scott Walker -- I mean the idea that Republicans actually working on things are somehow damaged by all of this chaos in Washington, I think...
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, we're almost out of time. We've -- take a minute left. I just want to quickly around the table, is there a deal before Thursday's deadline? Do the consequences of default start to kick in?
PLOUFFE: I think it's no better than 50/50. And so I think the country needs to prepare that this could go on for a while.
NOONAN: I think the House is nervous, the Senate is nervous, and the White House is nervous, nobody knows how this end or exactly when, but there will be great pressure to clean this up especially if damning polls continue to come out.
KRUGMAN: I think it's no better than 50/50. And the positive 50 comes entirely from the likelihood that the markets are going to say something really very loud when they open tomorrow.
SENOR: I think that they will get through it. Republicans should get through this and move as quickly as possible to a debate on Obamacare to prove what Paul's prediction is actually not correct.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And we'll see if House Speaker John Boehner survives that kind of a vote. Thank you all very much. Great discussion.
Next, Hollywood takes on Julian Assange in a new movie. And the founder of WikiLeaks fires back live from his London hideout in an ABC News exclusive.
And later, that Nobel prize surprise. Terry Moran talks to the chemical weapons inspectors who won. And our experts examine why they were chosen and what's next for the young girl who came so close, Malala.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And up next, the actor who portrays Julian Assange explains why he defied the WikiLeaks founder and took the lead in the new movie The Fifth Estate. And Assange joins us live to weigh in on the film, Edward Snowden and what's next for WikiLeaks.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're human beings, Julian. And their lives are at stakes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What about the lives of soldiers and the civilians involved in these conflicts?
I'm reporting civilian casualties, countless incidents of friendly fire, this is information the world needs to know.
STEPHANOPOULOS: A scene from "The Fifth Estate," a new movie tracking the complicated and compelling story of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Assange, who is standing by to join us live has taken some shots at the film. And he tried to persuade the actor who portrays him, Benedict Cumberbatch, to refuse the role.
ABC's Lindsey Davis sat down with the actor to talk about that challenge and why he choice to accept the part.
LINSEY DAVIS, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Until now, British actor Benedict Cumberbatch has been most commonly recognized for his role in the BBC's critically acclaimed series, "Sherlock" and most recently as Captain Kirk's nemesis in "Star Trek: Into Darkness."
CUMBERBATCH: Why did you allow me to live?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And action.
DAVIS: Quite a departure from his starring role in the new film, "The Fifth Estate," as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the man who's been called the world's most notorious transparency activist.
JULIAN ASSANGE, FOUNDER, WIKILEAKS: I think to criticize the messenger to distract from the power of the message.
DAVIS (voice-over): Playing Assange is complex enough, further complicated by the fact that the famed whistleblower was opposed to the movie.
CUMBERBATCH: The difficulty, I guess, was to try and portray him as a three-dimensional human being, not vilify him or glorify him.
DAVIS: So you reach out to him, trying to get a fix on his character --
CUMBERBATCH: I did, yes.
DAVIS: -- and how does Assange respond?
CUMBERBATCH: Well, he slammed the door pretty politely but pretty firmly.
DAVIS (voice-over): The door he describes was an eloquently crafted email written by Assange to Cumberbatch in which he says, "I believe you're a good person, but I do not believe that this film is a good film. It is going to smother the truthful version of events at a time when the truth is most in demand.
"By meeting with you, I would validate this wretched film and endorse the talented but debauched performance that the script will force you to give."
CUMBERBATCH: I wrote one back with equal force arguing why I thought the story and his character and this particular moment in time was needed. WikiLeaks achieved great, great things all the way up to the 2010 big smash with the (inaudible) and cables. I think the film celebrates that. I think it's far more diverse even in its dual point perspective than he feared it would be.
DAVIS: How do you play a man, though, who refuses to meet you?
CUMBERBATCH: It's hard. You do have to make leaps of faith. You do have to join dots. And that's where the fictitious element of a dramatization comes about.
DAVIS: You have said before that we're all citizens of democracy, but how aware are you of the Snowdens and the issues that surround this debate?
CUMBERBATCH: Very, I mean, we are living in a time when in order to fight terrorism, we are eroding civil liberties at a rate that's a little alarming, really alarming, in fact. And yet at the same time, we need to save people's live. I mean, it's very difficult to be completely clear-cut. I think it needs debate.
DAVIS (voice-over): The debate is precisely what he believes "The Fifth Estate" will provoke.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is information that the world needs to know.
DAVIS (voice-over): For THIS WEEK, Linsey Davis, ABC News, New York.
STEPHANOPOULOS: "The Fifth Estate" is being distributed by Touchstone Pictures, a division of ABC's parent company, Disney.
And with that, let's continue to debate. We turn live to Julian Assange, who joins us from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Thank you for joining us again, Mr. Assange. And you heard Benedict Cumberbatch there, he says that he tried to neither glorify nor vilify you. And the film celebrates many of what he calls the great things that WikiLeaks has done.
Do you accept that?
ASSANGE: Well, Mr. Cumberbatch wrote me a charming, very polite letter and with genuine concerns about the nature of the script being used in that film. He's reported to have said to "Vogue" and to "The Guardian" that he had fights with the director; he wanted to present me as a, quote, "cartoon bad guy" -- that's Mr. Cumberbatch's words.
I don't want to put words into his -- additional words into his mouth. But of course, he is under a contract and he's limited to what he can say in the film. I do know that he tried to ameliorate some of the worst elements of the script. But with limited success.
STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your biggest complaint?
ASSANGE: At least he tried.
STEPHANOPOULOS: What's your biggest complaint of the film?
ASSANGE: Well, I don't know where to begin, I mean, we released the whole script well before this happened. There was no approach to us by DreamWorks, in any formal capacity whatsoever, other than an informal approach by Benedict Cumberbatch just days before shooting began.
This is a film that is based upon my life's work, the work of my organization; we have people in extremely serious situations. Sarah Harrison, who accompanied Edward Snowden out of Hong Kong, now effectively in exile in Russia because of the terrorism investigation here.
We have (inaudible) an alleged media source, the 25 organizations including ours up for sentencing in under a month's time, an ongoing grand jury investigation.
But what are the responsibilities for ethical filmmaking in that context? None of the suggested changes that we sent to participant media ended up even in the final text of the film. But there's been a big cashing-in that has gone on.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You mentioned -- you mentioned Sarah Harrison --
ASSANGE: A rich organization that is -- yes?
STEPHANOPOULOS: You mentioned Sarah Harrison. As you said --
ASSANGE: This is a rich organization, DreamWorks. Its making a lot of money and tries -- is continuing to make a lot of money from this process. But none of -- there's no contribution to our defense fund, to the defense fund of our sources and so on.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me move on to Sarah Harrison, as you said, she's with Edward Snowden. We saw Edward Snowden this week receive an award from four American whistleblowers who traveled over to meet with him. And it was something that was facilitated by WikiLeaks; of course Sarah Harrison, a prime member of WikiLeaks as well. She's been with Snowden throughout his time in Russia.
What can you tell about how Edward Snowden is doing right now?
What's next for him and for Sarah Harrison?
ASSANGE: Well, Edward Snowden is safe. We, through a lot of work, and particularly by Sarah Harrison, managed to gain him asylum in Russia after our attempts to gain him asylum in South America were thwarted by (inaudible) bizarre manner by the State Department, by denying -- by canceling his passport while he was in Moscow.
So, he's safe. He's working to educate people. The journalists involved in these disclosures as to what is going on, he very rightly received that award from a former NSA, CIA, FBI, and DOJ whistleblowers, an award for integrity.
It's a serious matter. It's a threat to U.S. democracy and to democracy more broadly in the West to have a surveillance apparatus on every single person that would have been the dream of East Germany.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet at the same time, those revelations from Edward Snowden came under strong attack this week from the head of Britain's domestic (inaudible) Andrew Parker, who called the leaks a gift to the terrorists. NSA chief Keith Alexander said this week that people will die because of the leaks.
Your response?
ASSANGE: Well, we have seen this for 50 years, every time the press embarrasses the security establishment, shows they have been acting unlawfully, against what they have said to Congress or to the media, they trout out this old canard, that some speculative harm sometime in the future might happen, when we're discussing harm that is happening right now, as a result of these abusive programs.
The budget procedure you mentioned just recently, an interesting side effect of that, the National Security Agency has used the debate in Congress to cancel even its own internal investigation, but the people in the review panel are (inaudible). It's quite interesting to see how they in Clapper or Obama, yes, we need to have a debate. We need to have an investigation. Everything must be under Democratic control.
But at the first instance they can, as soon as there is a distraction, they try and subvert their promises to the public.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And what is next for you, Mr. Assange?
Any chance you're going to leave that embassy any time soon?
ASSANGE: Well, I would leave this embassy -- it's a bit of prison in some way, but I have good people here, but where would I go to? I would end up in the outside world where you are. But what is happening to the outside world? That's a much bigger consideration, it's a big (ph) consideration for me and my staff and the 12 different legal actions we have going in different countries.
But it's a consideration for everyone what type of place is Western democracy going to be? Is it going to be a place with a collapsing rule of law, with mass surveillance of entire populations?
All the practical elements of a totalitarian regime. We don't yet have a totalitarian regime but have all the -- getting pretty close in the practical elements.
Is that going to cross over into something else? That would be a hard place for an investigative organization like WikiLeaks to work in. It is a hard place for Glenn Greenwald. He's now in effective exile in Brazil. Laura Pointress (ph), in effective exile in Germany. Sarah Harrison, U.K. citizen, in effective exile in Russia. Edward Snowden, asylum in Russia. Me, asylum here.
The West is becoming a place where the best and the brightest who keep the government -- hold the government to account in (inaudible) -- in asylum or in exile in other countries. We have seen that before with dictatorships in Latin America, with the Soviet Union. And it's time it stops.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It's clear your fight is going to continue. Mr. Assange, thanks very much.
Up next -- a Nobel Prize surprise. Why did chemical weapons inspectors win the peace prize?
And what's next for the inspiring runner-up, Malala?
STEPHANOPOULOS: And coming up, his pulpit is unique. He is fed up with his flock. The Senate chaplain who says enough is enough and he's our "Sunday Spotlight."
MALALA YOUSAFZAI, EDUCATION ADVOCATE: They would like to speak against me, it's their right. But the thing is, I only want support for my cause of education. It's the right of every girl and every boy.
DIANE SAWYER, ABC ANCHOR: The kind of education you were getting, they argue, is a Western education.
YOUSAFZAI: If I want to go to school, and I want to become a doctor, so there would be an Eastern doctor or a Western doctor? Is there a difference in the studies? If I wanted to become an engineer, is there a different way to become an engineer, Eastern engineer or a Western engineer? This is education. This is knowledge. It can neither be Eastern nor Western.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And so with the young woman so many expected to win the Nobel Peace Prize this, Malala Yousafzai, the 16-year-old Pakistani girl who survived bullets for insisting that all girls deserve an education.
It went instead to chemical weapons inspectors for the tough work they do around the world. And we brought in some extras to talk about that choice and what's next for Malala.
But first let's go to ABC's chief foreign correspondent Terry Moran in Syria, where the winners are doing their most (AUDIO GAP).
Good morning, terry.
TERRY MORAN, ABC CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: George, there are 28 Nobel Prize-winning chemical weapons inspectors are on the ground here in Damascus right now. And the task they face is staggering.
They're supposed to identify, locate, remove, and destroy Syria's entire chemical weapons arsenal, more than thousands of munitions, precursor chemicals, mixing equipment, the lot. Do it in a few months in the middle of a raging civil war.
We met with the team the night they won the prize. They are, as you would imagine, a close-knit bunch, not without a sense of humor. The "Chemical Brothers" they call themselves. But they are under no illusions about the difficulty of this task, or the fact that they themselves are personally targets.
Many of the rebel and jihadist groups in this country do not want them here. They wanted the American military strike that President Obama promised. They thought that might help change the balance of power in this war and lead them to victory.
But for many ordinary Syrians, the work of the chemical weapons inspectors is the work of peace. And they hope that it might offer the chance of a beginning of the end of their long national agony -- George.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Thank you, Terry.
And for more on the Nobel Peace Prize announcement, we're joined by David Miliband, who served as Britain's foreign secretary, now runs the International Rescue Committee here in New York; along with Shiza Shahid, who founded and runs the Malala Fund.
Thank you both of you for joining us. And, David, let me begin with you. There has been some criticism of this choice. Do you think it's justified?
DAVID MILIBAND, PRESIDENT & CEO, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: I think the chemical weapons inspectors do amazing work. But the truth is, they probably wouldn't have gotten this prize if President Assad hadn't used chemical weapons. So it's a bit of an irony that you've got this body that has done 15 years of important work. It takes the abuse of chemical weapons to put it in the headlines.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So even though the Nobel Prize -- the committee denies that this is in some ways sort of to reinforce their work...
MILIBAND: I think there's an aspiration in the announcement. But there's also a danger. Let's be honest, 1,400 people were killed with chemical weapons, 150,000 people have been killed in all, 7 million people displaced from their homes.
And people like me running an organization like the International Rescue Committee, we're concerned that people don't think that somehow because the chemical weapons seems to being addressed that the Syrian conflict, the regional conflict has done...
STEPHANOPOULOS: The refugee crisis is still exploding.
MILIBAND: I mean, 7 million people. Just think of a country like Jordan, a big ally of the United States, 600,000 refugees. That's like the (AUDIO GAP) in the United States. It's a massive hit to these societies.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Shiza, how did Malala take the announcement?
SHIZA SHAHID, CO-FOUNDER & CEO, MALALA FUND: You know, she said to me jokingly yesterday, if I ignore the Nobel Committee's decision, I already feel like I've won, because people all over the world have been sending in love and prayers.
So she wasn't expecting it, she had said, I have a lot of work to do. And that's what she's focusing on and she has wished the OPCW luck in their tremendous task.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And I wonder, as you talk about the work that Malala wants to do, if not getting the Nobel Peace Prize was somehow a blessing in disguise, does it help her in some way in her home country?
SHAHID: I mean, she's 16. I think it's a heavy burden to carry. She carries many burdens already. And she does them very, very well. But I think she has many, many years ahead of her to win the prize. In Pakistan, people were hopeful and expecting it, but I think it really brought the nation together around a cause and it served its purpose with the nomination.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And she has said that at some point, she wouldn't -- she could seek -- she could see herself seeking elective office. But what is the focus right now for Malala and the foundation?
SHAHID: For Malala, it's school and getting back to having some sort of a normal life while also continuing her campaign. So at the foundation, we're trying to build the right team around her to take her campaign forward with her vision, which is really getting girls into school and helping them be be powerful agents of change.
STEPHANOPOULOS: This is something that you all worked on when you were British foreign secretary?
MILIBAND: Yes, I think there's a revolution going on around the world and it's not the political revolutions that get the headlines, it's the education revolution that's helping to change lives. And this spirit that is so evident in Malala Yousafzai's work, extraordinarily inspiring work, I think is one of great hopes for progress.
Of course, if you just go back to that Syrian crisis, 300,000 kids in Lebanon, boys and girls, Syrian refugees with no education. And they need NGOs, they need government to really mobilize, because that's a -- if we're not careful -- a forgotten and dangerous generation. And their potential as a generation is magnificent. But the danger is obviously huge. And right across the Arab world massive...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you see hope in Pakistan now?
SHAHID: We do. We do. We see -- you know, Malala's shooting really galvanized people to get up and say, I denounce terrorism, I name the groups that have done this attack, which was not being done in the past, and thousands of girls got up and said "I am Malala." And that was revolutionary.
So we see hope and we see progress.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Some people will be back in a decade and see Malala as a Nobel Prize winner?
MILIBAND: I hope so.
The Pakistani government (inaudible) spent six or seven times as much on the military as on Education. Now organizations like the IRC, the International Rescue Committee, organizations like the Pakistani government, NGOs, they're mobilizing for education in Pakistan, because it's the future of that country.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Big change. Thank you both very much.
And next, senators get a surprise scolding from their chaplain.
BARRY BLACK, SENATE CHAPLAIN: It's time for our lawmakers to say enough is enough.
STEPHANOPOULOS: He tells us why in our "Sunday Spotlight."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I tell you, I want to smack them across the face with a bag full of quarters. And that's change I can believe in.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That is "Saturday Night Live's" take on the man in this week's "Sunday Spotlight," Senate Chaplain Barry Black.
After watching the shutdown mess consume the Senate chamber, he unleashed a surprisingly sharp scolding to the legislators (inaudible). ABC's John Donovan spoke with him about that message and his ministry.
BLACK: Look with favor upon President Barack Obama.
JOHN DONOVAN, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: You have seen him before, lots of times.
BLACK: We praise you, the giver of bountiful gifts.
DONOVAN: The prayer guy, big ceremonies, he's there, anonymously mostly, because you didn't know his name before this, did you?
BLACK: Let us pray.
DONOVAN: until a few days back when the content of his prayers turned to the government shutdown.
BLACK: Save us from the madness.
DONOVAN: So that suddenly the prayer guy is making news.
BLACK: I think we've had some slow news days, John.
DONOVAN: Oh, that's way too modest, because Barry Black, that's his name, is a former Navy rear admiral, a Ph.D. Psychologist and ordained Seventh Day Adventist minister and the U.S. Senate's 62nd official chaplain since 1789, who gets the Senate floor a minute a day to talk out loud to god, otherwise known as prayer.
But lately...
BLACK: Forgive them for the blunders they have committed.
DONOVAN: Chaplain Black has been informing god of some flaws he sees in our lawmakers.
BLACK: They can comprehend their duty, but not perform it.
DONOVAN: Like ending the shutdown for the nation's sake and for god's sake...
BLACK: Deliver us from the hypocrisy of attempting to sound reasonable while being unreasonable.
DONOVAN: So you want them to hear this conversation you're having with god?
BLACK: Well, the fact that they overhear it is just one of the of fortuitous advantages of what I do.
DONOVAN: In fact, Chaplain Black has a real relationship with many Senate members. A couple dozen attend a weekly prayer breakfast with him. They also do bible study together.
BLACK: Eternal Lord God...
One Senator came to me and said, chaplain, I hope our lawmakers are listening because I have been following your prayers very, very closely, for the last four or five days and they're really making a difference in my reflections.
DONOVAN: Indeed, of the several senators we asked, all said they're good with his recent focus.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN, (D) WEST VIRGINIA: He has the respect of everybody, Democrats and Republicans
SEN. JOHNNY ISAKSON, (R) GEORGIA: I think we're lucky to have Barry Black.
SEN. TOM CARPER, (D) DELAWARE: When I grow up I want to be just like Barry Black.
DONOVAN: And yet the shutdown continues, during which the man who prays himself is not getting paid.
BLACK: Amen.
DONOVAN: You're still showing up?
BLACK: I am being remunerated from above. And that's pretty special.
DONOVAN: Right, but that's not going to buy the lunch.
BLACK: You would be amazed at what it can do for the loaves and the fish.
DONOVAN: Ah, then that tells us what we're praying for here: it is called a miracle.
For "This Week," John Donovan, ABC News, Washington.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And the Chaplain has faith thanks to John Donovan for that.
And now, we honor our fellow Americans who serve and sacrifice. This week, the Pentagon released the names of six service members killed in Afghanistan.
And that is all for us today. Thank you for sharing part of your Sunday with us.
Check out "World News" with David Muir tonight. And I'll see you tomorrow on GMA.


text:
Harry Kalas, RIP
T.S. Eliot wrote it, in an utterly different context:
T.S. Eliot wrote it, in an utterly different context:
Mr. Olbermann, first this was be an odd week for you. I know you've had so many thoughts and prayers for your mother. I watched that night your tribute. I was kind of on the other end of the city METS. My dad NEVER got over Brooklyn. As a girl people woud laugh at me all the time when I would give the great attributes of baseball. My father as a child would tell me about the Negro Leagues and explain that it wasn't a sport for wimps it takes guts to stand in front of a ball coming at your head at that speed and you have the guts to stand there and say "bring it on". Last week, I cried just because I thought about you, your mom and then my dad. Now, Mr. Kalas. Wow. I know this sounds silly to cry, but it's just a beautiful art of a sport announcing. When you're mad, when your family has done a silly thing, when you don't feel well, there Mr. Kalas was making us forget and just be right there. We don't even get to know those emotions he felt. Maybe in many ways we took him from granted. Yesterday, I just said ok tonight the Nationals and the Phillies always start slow, so who knows? Well, this…is beyond me. Just listen to him yesterday afternoon on Coors Field. Wow.
I was a Yankee fan until the late 70's when I moved to the Philly area and as a condition of marriage, reluctantly became a Phillies fan. It didn't take long to fall into the routine of listening to Whitey and Harry as a ritual of summer. As a 30-year diehard Phils' fan, I can't help but recall when Harry comforted the phillies faithful, after the passing of Richie Ashburn. Through Harry's obvious and heartfelt sadness, and through tears, he reminded all of us that Richie (Whitey) probably couldn't have planned a better way to leave us — on the road, in his hotel room, after calling a game. Now, it's Harry, and knowing that he was in his "church," the broadcast booth, brings it full circle. Thank you Harry. Thanks, Keith. There aren't enough words. And it'll never be the same. RIP
I am still in shock over the news. I was at the Rockies/Phillies game in Denver yesterday and smiled when the father of a family of Phillies fans pointed to the broadcast booth and said to his kids "there's Harry Kalas." Growing up in Philly and keeping in tune with the Phillies since I left, Harry The K has always been the voice of baseball to me.
Thank you for sharing these great memories of a great sports broadcaster and ambassador for our city.
I shared MY memory of Kalas in my own blog, but…
When baseball left Washington after '71, I had to find SOME team to follow. So I wound up listening to (the then-) WCAU in Philadelphia and hearing Harry Kalas, By Saam and Richie Ashburn describe the exploits of Mike Schmidt, Greg ("the Bull") Luzinski…and Del Unser. Del is the one responsible for the phrase "GO NASTY NATS!!!" (which is why my Nats blog[s] are named that way, BTW), so it was nice to follow an ex-Senator…even if he WAS playing in Philadelphia!!! LMAO
Anyway, you said this better than I ever could. I have one more "timely" death you left out: Bert Bell, the man who preceded Pete Rozelle as NFL commisioner. He bought the farm at Franklin Field in Philadelphia just as the Eagles scored the winning touchdown…at least I think the Eagles scored; it could've been whoever they played (I forgot who, actually).
You can research that last bit before you go on tonight.
Nasty Nats Live Here (and Everywhere)
I'd love to think you read our comments Keith, but with the way some people feel the need to turn the blog into a vehicle for unrelated nonsense, I can't say I blame you.
I can't say I knew Harry Kalas but I'd met him, talked with him, and even hung out a little with him on maybe a dozen or so different occasions over the past ten years.
I'd see Harry out on the smoking porch, up on the Club Level at Minute Maid Park in Houston, literally steps away from the media suites.
Yes, Harry smoked and he once chuckled to me that he ought to write the damn things off to the IRS as they, he said, helped make his voice what it is. But this isn't about the dangers of smoking but about the Harry Kalas I only barely knew over a dozen or so 10-20 minute increments.
I had heard his voice on NFL films but I didn't know who he was and growing up in Houston, I was too young to remember Harry's stint in Houston in the 1960's where he worked with a fellow Ford C. Frick Award recipient, issued by the Baseball Hall of Fame, Gene Elston.
One day, almost ten years ago, I was out on the Minute Maid Park Club Level smoking deck, and Harry walks out onto it from inside. We were the only two people on the deck and he looks around and comes over, asking if he minded if he sat down at the table I was at.
I didn't know who he was but I knew I had heard his voice somewhere and "Sure, no problem, have a seat."
I introduced myself and he, himself, we shook hands, and we chatted about the game, how Wagner was looking, talking pitchers.
The discussion moved to what we were doing at the ballpark and finally I asked him if he had ever done anything for NFL Films because I KNEW I'd heard his voice before and he smiled. It was a wry smile but his eyes glittered. He seemed amused – in a good way.
"Yep, I've done a little here and there." He chuckled.
I laughed and apologized for being such a fanboy but also manage to blurt out how I'd feel bad if I didn't take the opportunity to acknowledge to him that I thought his work was remarkable and it was truly a pleasure to meet a guy with chops like his.
He smiled and gave me a gracious thanks and we got back to baseball. And that's the way it would go for the rest of the series. Nothing special or planned. – our pre-game downtime simply coincided.
The next season he appeared again. Same place, same scenario. I tried to re-introduce myself thinking the guy sees and works with so many people – but he remembered me and we picked up the conversation pretty much from where we left off.
We were at the ballpark shooting the breeze and talking baseball which sometimes can legitimately compete with anything for the title of "the best thing in the world."
And that's it – nothing remarkable except to say he was a remarkably nice man and by all accounts, a hell of a talent, and I'll miss talking baseball with him whenever the Phillies are in town.
* * *
Btw, on an unrelated note if you read this, Keith, your show is Top Notch. Great writing. Nice production. I enjoy it and try not to miss it. Keep up the good work and thanks for the insightful baseball blog.
I will never forget sitting in shock while in my college dorm room watching John McSherry lay on the field at Riverfront Stadium. It was haunting. It was horrifying. It was unforgettable.Russhttp://wight4256.mlblogs.com
I CANT BELIEVE ITS TRUE………harrys voice is stitched into my memory as a sport, and baseball fan……….this town wont be the same without him…….i actually shook his hand before the final series game last october; he smiled gracously and let me talk a bit, but i could see he didnt look well, even in lieu of the PHILLIES iminent victory…….HE IS WITH WHITEY NOW………..
Just read this online. RIP Harry Kalas.
Just as the news came that Harry Kalas died, Vin Scully was throwing out the first pitch to commemorate the start of his 60th season with the Dodgers. And Vin then did a lovely tribute to Harry. It reminded me of how much a part of our lives our baseball broadcasters become. I can only begin to imagine the pain that Phillies fans feel right now.
I'd like to thank you, Keith, not only for your memories of Kalas, but also for your reminiscence of John McSherry, a great umpire and from all I have heard and seen, a great and funny guy. And I would like to add that I did hear Harry the K say Mickey Morandini's name, and it did take about 10 seconds. When Morandini made that triple play, I'd swear Kalas's call of it lasted into the next inning. Just priceless. That voice was incredible, and it may be stilled, but we will always have it with us.
Harry was the Shakespeare of what he did, with his unique way of both conveying and accentuating the unbridled drama of the game to such a degree that, had one somehow found a way to not be smitten with the poetry of baseball, Harry's voice would bring you in, ready or not.
One of my most lasting memories of Harry was back in the mid-'70s; having called a big-finish pennant-clincher after uncountable seasons of Phailure, with all the emotion he brought to the mic, with the last out recorded and the celebration commencing, the camera panned to Harry for a stand-up wrap. And there he stood: his cheeks literally dripping with tears of joy for the team he'd worked for only a few years, for the fans who'd persevered all their lives, for the joy of the moment we were all sharing.
Now the tears are ours. Goodbye Harry. We love you.
If umpires are a lot like trial court judges, then broadcasters are a lot like the judges that make up baseball's Court of Appeals. They review and comment on plays and calls, frequently validating and sometimes questioning the eyesight and/or the wisdom of their earth-bound brethren.
The very best of these broadcasters are baseball's Supreme Court. Justice Curt Gowdy, Justice Vin Scully, Justice Harry Caray, et al have now retired or passed on, but their love and devotion for the game of baseball will never die because it lives on in the hearts of those baseball fans who were so fortunate to hear them. Their commitment to incisive commentary, their joyful recall of the perfect anecdote or the never been heard before story, and above all their palpable sense of fair play, decency and good humor is a tonic that lifts the human spirit.
Justice Harry Kalas. Rest in Peace.
As a 38 year old life long Phillie fan, Harry Kalas is the voice that brought me baseball every night. Most of what I know of baseball I learned from Harry and Richie Ashburn.
Harry loves his Phillies and even more he loved the game of baseball. God knows he had to endure some awful Phillie teams in the mid to late 80's and early 90's. Harry's passing makes the World Series Championship even more special to me that Harry got to see it before his untimely passing.
As great of an announcer as Harry he was, he was an ever greater person. Harry always take time to talk to his fans and even surprised many by remembering their names after only one meeting. Harry never forget where he came from, and made sure he made everyone feel special. He was one of those people that could make you feel you were the only one in a crowded room.
I have heard so many great stories over the last two days about Harry and Richie and the way they touched those who they never met.
RIP Harry, you will be missed. My Sunday afternoons will never be the same without you.
Keith…Thank you for writing a fitting tribute for Harry Kalas. I sent an email to Countdown to ask you if you could do a tribute to Harry, but when I heard on Rachel's show last night that you have this blog, I was pleasantly surprised to find this tribute today. Thank you!
As a Phillies fan since the day I was born, I was saddened on Monday when I heard the news of Harry's death. He will be missed by everyone who was within the sound of his voice on the radio or television. One of my favorite calls of Harry's was when Mike Schmidt hit his 500th home run in Pittsburgh! Although, Harry had a way of making every call memorable, especially with the nicknames he had for certain players. Mitch Williams will forever be known to Phillies fans as "Mitchypoo". I have many special memories of listening to Harry and Whitey over the years. They truly brought the Phillies to life and kept an upbeat outlook on each game in every season, even if the Phillies were in last place.
Phillies broadcasts will never be the same! May you rest in peace, Harry!
Tim, wonderful comments, but one correction. Justice Scully is still ruling from the Vin Scully Press Box at Dodger Stadium and for all road games involving NL and AL West teams. His contract expires after this season and he long has made noises about not liking the road, so my hope is that if he no longer wants to travel, he'll decide to do only the home games.
Ex-player Doug Glanville blogs for The New York Times and, if I may, he did a wonderful piece on Harry the K:
Harry was a class act !! I have listened to him for all of his 38 years and Harry & "Whitey" while he was with us. My grandson and I met Harry and "Whitey" in the booth in 1993. They treated us as if they knew us forever. In the 1980's I began writing him letters twice a year for my Mom"s and Wife's birthdays. He never missed a year. I respect the fact that even after all the mail they receive, they read it all. I sent him a congrats card after the Hall of Fame induction, and a few months down the line received a nice handwritten acknowledgement from him and and autographed picture. All of the above definesd why he is a class act. My prayers to his family. Just as a sign I seen at the ballpark on TV – "He was a Treasure through and through, Harry Kalas, "WE LOVE YOU"
The most enjoyable thing about listening to Harry call a Phils game was not what he said , but rather what he didn't say. When you watched a Phils game, it was just that: a game. You could hear the murmur of the crowd, the hot dog vendors calling out, kids laughing, fans cheering.
There was none of the incessant banter back and forth like between Joe Buck and Tim McCarver. (Someone should fire those two a**holes.) Analysis of the game down to the finest minutiae has taken its toll. I really don't care if Manny ever cuts his hair or if Johnny Damon grows it out again. I want to hear a game called in its purest form. Ball and a strike. That's it. Now I will never get to hear another game called by him. RIP Harry the K.
Harry first came into my life as a broadcaster for the brand-new Houston Colt'45s; imagine my surprise and great pleasure when I later heard him announcing for my Phillies. My favorite Harry-moment was one day when he said the Phils' defense was at "tripple-play depth." You never knew where Harry was gonna show up next: commercials here, football there, everywhere Harry! We'll miss you, Bud. You're not our broadcaster any more, but you'll never be "OUTA-HEEEERE!"
Harry first came into my life as a broadcaster for the brand-new Houston Colt'45s; imagine my surprise and great pleasure when I later heard him announcing for my Phillies. My favorite Harry-moment was one day when he said the Phils' defense was at "tripple-play depth." You never knew where Harry was gonna show up next: commercials here, football there, everywhere Harry! We'll miss you, Bud. You're not our broadcaster any more, but you'll never be "OUTA-HEEEERE!"
I still miss Harry calling the games. There'll never be anyone to match him.
He smiled and gave me a gracious thanks and we got back to baseball. And that's the way it would go for the rest of the series. Nothing special or planned. – our pre-game downtime simply coincided. Admission essay | dissertation
Thanks for sharing this information, keep up the good work. book report writing | theses
The blog is quite amazing and wonderful and will help the students to understand the real and correct meaning of the structure, beautiful work.
Right here is the right web site for everyone who wants to understand this
topic. You realize so much its almost hard to argue with you (not
that I personally would want to…HaHa). You certainly put a new spin on a subject that's been written about for many years.
Excellent stuff, just excellent!


text:
You are here
Export 2 results:Author Title Type [ Year]
Filters: First Letter Of Title is H and Author is A. Moscatelli [Clear All Filters]
"Hand synergies: Integration of robotics and neuroscience for understanding the control of biological and artificial hands", Physics of Life Reviews, vol. 17, pp. 1-23, 2016 [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064516000269,
Human and Robot Hands - Sensorimotor Synergies to Bridge the Gap Between Neuroscience and Robotics. Springer, 2016 [Online]. Available: http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319267050,


text:
Teachers Teaching Teachers #219 -Gaming to learn about the business of the environment – 9.22.10
More gaming, more environment on this episode of Teachers Teaching Teachers.
We invited Andy Rosenbloom (plus a teacher from New Jersey who has used
Spill! in his classroom last Spring) and Tim Baker back onto the show to continue our conversations about gaming and the environment that started this summer with A Real Team Challenge: Spill! TTT 211 – 07.28.10. This summer Andy Rosenbloom, Program Director for the Virtual Team Challenge: Spill! invited us to join Spill!:
Even though you're busy this summer with countless poolside BBQs, it's never too early to plan ahead for Fall semester curriculum. The Virtual Team Challenge is an entirely FREE online, multiplayer business simulation that takes place in the animated 3D world of New City. The team objective in the simulation is to help the mayor stage the most efficient oil spill recovery effort. Top-performing teams are eligible for prizes for themselves, their teachers, and local charities! Virtual Team Challenge will run this Fall from October 12 – November 24. See our article in The New York Times to read about one NJ teacher's success with the program. Virtual Team Challenge comes complete with lesson plans and in-class exercises which form a curriculum that highlights general business acumen, business ethics, negotiation skills, decision-making processes and accounting while placing a special emphasis on important life/career skills such as teamwork, communication, professionalism and research methods.
We were also joined by Tim Baker, a graduate student who Susan Ettenheim
met this summer at a Scratch workshop at MIT. (Listen to: Lots of overlapping pieces: Laura Fay and Tim Baker on using Scratch in middle school – TTT #215 – 08.25.10) Tim Baker came to MIT from Orono, Maine with his project Sim Stream. University of Maine Undergraduate researchers are developing a grades 6-8 virtual, educational system that poses environmental issues for students to explore in their own ecological system, drawing from diverse areas of study. By learning to use scientific observations, analyze data, and draw inferences in formulating decisions and policies, students develop an appreciation and understanding for natural resources, human-non-human inter-dependencies and the need for civic responsibility.
We invite you to join this ongoing conversation by listening to this podcast.
Click Read more to see a copy of the chat that was happening during the webcast.


text:
Jury finds Va. Tech negligent in '07 shootings
CHRISTIANSBURG, Va.—The parents of two Virginia Tech students killed in a 2007 campus massacre worked for years to prove university officials were negligent for waiting to warn students of a gunman on campus, and a jury agreed with them on Wednesday.
It took jurors 3 1/2 hours to find that university officials botched their response to the April 16, 2007, massacre that left 33 people -- including the gunman -- dead. The jury determined in the wrongful death lawsuit against the state that the parents of Julia Pryde and Erin Peterson each deserved $4 million. The award likely will be sharply reduced because Virginia law requires such awards to be capped at $100,000.
The lawsuit was the last pending litigation over the mass shootings and it's not clear if any additional lawsuits will be filed. The state is expected to appeal the verdict, as it did a separate fine handed down by federal education officials. No criminal charges were brought in the shootings.
"We were looking for truth for a long time," Harry Pryde said outside the courthouse that's less than 10 miles from Tech's Blacksburg campus. "We persevered and we got some truth today."
After the verdict, the parents said their persistence is what their daughters would have wanted. They were the only eligible families to reject their share of an $11 million dollar settlement in 2008, instead taking the state to court in a wrongful death lawsuit.
The $11 million settlement was split between 24 families, excluding other disbursements such as $1.9 million set aside in a hardship fund. The state could not immediately provide a per-family breakdown of the settlement.
The families who sued the state, however, said getting answers mattered the most. They argued that lives could have been spared if school officials had moved more quickly to alert the campus after the first two victims were shot in a dorm. The massacre ended later in the morning with the deaths 31 more people, including the gunman, in a classroom building.
"When you know that something is right you're not deterred from your course," said Celeste Peterson, whose daughter Erin died in the mass shooting that was the deadliest in modern U.S. history. "We wanted the truth from the very beginning and we got it. All I know is today we got what we wanted."
The state, which was the lone defendant in the case, argued the university did all that it could with the information available at the time. President Charles W. Steger and other university officials said they initially believed the first two shootings were isolated instances of domestic violence, based on what police investigators told them.
"The university's contention has been all along, to quote president Steger, `We did everything we could do,'" said Robert T. Hall, an attorney for the parents. "Obviously the jury didn't buy that."
The verdict was met by sobs from Celeste Peterson, while her husband Grafton appeared to quietly weep at the plaintiff's table. They later embraced each other. The Prydes were stoic, as they were most of the eight-day trial.
Circuit Judge William Alexander said it was the hardest case he had been a part of.
"My heart goes out to all of you," he said to the families of victims.
Virginia Tech spokesman Mark Owczarski said after the verdict that the school would review the case with the attorney general before deciding on any further options.
"We are disappointed with today's decision and stand by our long-held position that the administration and law enforcement at Virginia Tech did their absolute best with the information available on April 16, 2007," Owczarski said in a statement.
The attorney general's office said it was discussing "our options" with the Tech administration on an appeal and maintained trial evidence "established that it was the unanimous decision of three law enforcement agencies that the mass shooting was simply not foreseeable."
One of the state's attorneys, Peter R. Messitt, said before the verdict that Tech officials could not be expected to anticipate the killing spree, calling the slaughter unprecedented "in the history of higher education" and "one of the most horrible days in America."
"What happened at Norris Hall was not reasonably foreseeable," he told jurors during closing arguments.
Outside of court, Hall disagreed: "It's so clear that a warning should have been given. The amount of the verdict speaks to that end."
During the trial, the attorneys for the Prydes and Petersons portrayed campus police as leaping to the conclusion that the first two victims were shot by a jealous boyfriend, and that the gunman was not a threat to others.
They presented evidence that campus leaders, including Steger, heeded the police conclusion without question, then waited 2-1/2 hours before sending a campus-wide warning that a "shooting incident" had occurred. It did not say a gunman was still at large.
Police were pursuing the boyfriend of one of the dorm shooting victims as a "person of interest" at the expense of a campus-wide alert, the plaintiffs' attorneys said.
Police stopped the boyfriend as he approached the Blacksburg campus and were questioning him as shots rang out at Norris Hall, where student Seung-Hui Cho chained shut the doors to the building and killed the students and faculty. He then killed himself.
Tech officials issued a specific warning that a "gunman is loose on campus" through emails to 37,000 at 9:50 a.m., nearly 10 minutes after Cho began the Norris slaughter.
The parents' attorneys also accused Steger and other administrators of trying to cover up their missteps by building official timelines that suggested they reacted more aggressively to the first shootings. Tech administrators said mistakes in the timelines were made in the fog of a horrific tragedy.
The state presented witnesses, including experts in campus security, who said Tech police and administrators acted properly when they concluded the dorm shootings were domestic. The shootings occurred in an isolated area of the dorm, and the victims were a man and a woman clad in their undergarments and sleepwear.
Steger testified that he delayed sending a specific warning to avoid a panic and to allow the university to notify the victims' parents. He said the advice to delay a specific warning came from a member of his Policy Group who has since died.
S. Daniel Carter, a campus safety advocate, called the verdict a "vindication for all of us who have said more should have been done to protect the Virginia Tech campus." The trial, he added, was also "a vital opportunity to set the record straight about exactly what happened, and when."
A state panel that investigated the shootings concluded that officials erred in not sending an alert earlier. The lag in issuing a campus warning also brought Virginia Tech a $55,000 fine from the U.S. Education Department, which the school is appealing.
As far as Wednesday's jury award, Hall said that only actions by the governor, attorney general or General Assembly could raise it above $100,000.
Some parents have questioned why no one at Tech was held accountable for their actions, and Hall said the verdict sends a message to the university's board.
"The board of visitors will not be able to ignore the verdict," he said. "How they react to it is up to them."
Steve Szkotak can be reached on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sszkotakap.