text:
	Blood was all over her and she was crying... no she was

screaming. I was just standing over her, my body frozen. I tried to

move, but I couldn't. I tried to yell but all I heard was her

painful screaming. I kept thinking to my self, how could this be

happening to her. Who would do such a thing? Suddenly her body

seemed so relaxed, so silent, and so lifeless.

	The phone rang and I sat straight up in my bed, wondering

to my self, who is calling me and why. After the dream I had no

clue what I was doing when I answered the phone. It was a mistake

to answer the phone because I was trying to get the world to forget

I existed. My story started, perhaps ended, four years ago when I

shot and killed an innocent man. I had no reason at all to shoot

him except that fact he was running from me, but that is all I

remember. Not for one second did I remember pointing my gun at him

and shooting. Everyone said they saw me shoot him and then pass

out. The only thing I remember is lying on the ground and seeing a

dead man next to me. I must have shot him point blank because his

blood was all over my shirt. It was an accident; at least that is

what my friends told me. Some friends. I haven't been back to New

York since. I lost touch with my old life, but I started a new one

right here in Colorado. Big change, it truly was a big change since

I am out here in the middle of nowhere in a somewhat deserted

hotel. Which brings me back to the question, whom is calling me?

	The phone rang again only to be answered by me. When I

picked it up I found, to my surprise, my father. He started out by

saying how much he loved me and that he wished that I would move

back home. I told him that I would hang up is he didn't tell me why

he called. Then I heard the receiver pick up with a crying mother

at the end of it. I told my father, again, that if I didn't hear

anything useful to me that I would hang up. So he finally blurted

out that my sister had been murdered. I wanted so badly to just...

disappear. Finally I said, without crying, who did this, why, how,

but my pleas were unanswered. I started to yell who did this, who,

who! No one know my father said. I knew it; you are just as useless

as before. I slammed the phone down and knocked over my first aid

kit and my gun. I suddenly remembered the dream I had about my

sister screaming. Why was she screaming?

	After picking up what I had knocked over I decided to call

my parents back by dialing my old phone number. I called them back

to try and figure a few things out before looking for my sister. It

has been four years since I have solved anything so I decided to

start with the basic questions. When I called, my father answered

the phone and before he could say hello I asked him who killed my

sister. He said that if he knew the answer to that question he

would have told me earlier. So my first question went nowhere but

my second was the one that started my search. I asked him where she

was murdered and my first piece of evidence was an amusement park.

After about five minutes of pure silence my father said that my

sister had some important news she needed to tell me but since she

was dead he told me him self. He said Brilliance, my sister, had

become a cop to follow in my footsteps. Holding back tears I told

my father that I had had enough of my old life to last me awhile. I

hung up the phone again and decided to relax, seeing how my sister

had just died. I needed to take a breather.

	The dream of my sister dying kept on haunting me. It would

just replay itself in my mind over and over. What did it mean?

After about thirty minutes of repetition I decided to take a shower

and try to forget what I was dealing with. But when I walked into

the bathroom I saw something very much unexpected. The sink and

faucet were covered in blood. When I looked at the shower there was

this bloody shirt hanging there. Oddly enough it looked as though

it was my shirt and soon to find out it was. I walked toward the

shower to pick it up when I noticed there happened to be a hole in

the stomach area of the shirt. When I picked the shirt up I felt

woozy and all of a sudden I passed out and had yet another dream.

	By now I haad started to call my dreams visions because

when you dream you are actually asleep, but as you see I was not

sleeping. When I had this vision I saw Brilliance again, but this

time she was not on the ground in fact she was pointing a knife at

me and yelling. At first I could not understand her however after a

while I understood exactly why she was screaming. She was screaming

these horrible words "get away from me, are you crazy, why are you

doing this to me." Why would my own sister say those things to me?

Still the vision continued and not long after she stopped yelling

she stabbed me and I fell to the ground.

	I awoke from the dream in extreme pain. I looked down at my

stomach and there was this red blotch spreading on my shirt. When I

lifted my shirt I discovered a knife wound with stitches around it.

I tried with all my strength to stand up and reach the first aid

kit while trying to not my myself bleed more than I was. When I

grabbed the kit all of the contents fell out. Finally after

cleaning up the mess I found what I needed and proceeded with the

stitching. After I stitched my wound I tried to focus on what

happened to me. Did my sister really stab me? Her own flesh and

blood. What had frightened my sister enough to stab me? I decided

to search my hotle room and to see if I could find anything to help

me with my problem. At which moment I happened to remember seeing a

knife on the floor when I dropped the first aid kit. When I touched

the knife memories started to come back to me. Darkness, mirrors, a

roller coaster, tears, dust, and finally Brilliance. I heard

disturbing sounds like gun shots, howling wind, gasping of air, and

bullet shells dropping with intense heat. Enough, I threw the knife

across the room and it landed heavily on the floor. At which

instant I walked to the knife and picked it back up. Suddenly I had

more horrifying memories come back to me. I could smell the air

before it rains and Brilliance's sweet perfume lingering in the

air. I could also remember the way her hair and clothes smelt. The

one vision that stood out beyond the others was the pictures and

sounds of a stormy night.

	When I finally put the knife away I called my parents to

ask where the amusement park was. They told me right away and I

hung up the phone and ran to my car with my gun and the bloody

knife. While driving to the park I hda the knife in my view on the

dashboard. It had never occurred to me that the knife was the

biggest clue I had and that almost killed me. Further along the

road it began to rain and after awhile it became a problem. The

rain slicked the road and it was dangerous to go fast but I ignored

everything. My ignorance cost me my car as I slammed head on into a

tree.

	After yet another vision of Brilliance I woke up with a cut

on my forehead that was pouring blood into my eyes. When I looked

out of the car the rain had stopped and fog had eased itself into

the scenery. I slowly unbuckled and rolled out of the car only to

land awkwardly on the ground and break my arm. The sound of

breaking bones caused me to scream out in pain. Then without

warning two cops appeared in the fog and I stood up and walked over

to them and in an instant I passed out in their arms. At the time I

woke up I had a cast on my right arm and I was in extreme pain. I

heard whispers from another room but I still had not focused on

where I was. After awhile I noticed that I was in a jail cell when

at that same moment a guard appeared at my cell. He told me that I

was under arrest for possessing a gun and I was to be tried for the

murder of Brilliance. I told him that I did not kill her but he

just laughed.I finally said to myself that I needed to get out of

here and find who killed her. I used one of the bobby pins I had in

my hair to unlock the cell and found some car keys. I left the area

but not before seeing some cops coming running after me. I didn't

care because I was on a mission.

	Driving down the road was a pain because of the fog and my

cast. The radio static was a pain as well and moments later they

announced on the CB that I had escaped from jail and that I was

armed and dangerous. I guess they noticed that I took my gun back.

After a ten minute drive I found my way to the park, which was

closed. So I busted my way in through the chained gate and

proceeded to the back of the park, my visions from earlier being my

guide. After passing a house of mirrors I saw police tape strung up

cround this haunted warehouse. I broke the tape and walked up a

flight of stairs. Outside I could hear police sirens racing towards

the park. When I made it through the top of the stairs the was this

hatch with a broken lock on it. Someone had been here already and I

was guessing it was Brilliance. When I opened the hatch I could see

police cars swarming the park. The view was amzing because the fog

had lifted and it had begun to snow. Of course the snow didn't make

anything better.

	I stood at the top of the roof only to see cops invade the

warehouse. I began to have more visions this time I was actually

repeating them. I could not control myself at all. I had pulled my

gun and I was acting like I was shooting someone on the ground.

While this was happening the cops burst through the hatch and ahead

of them was my old captain. He told them to stay back because I was

crazy. He started walking towards me and I shot him when he pulled

his gun on me. He fired back and hit me in the chest, which sent me

rolling towards the edge of the roof. I almost fell off but the

captain grabbed me and said he was going to finish the job. I asked

him why and he whispered that he was the one that killed me sister

and I was next. Without hesitation I grabbed his arms and pushed

him off the roof but he grabbed my legs and I fell down on the

roof. We both started to slide off the roof as the other cops ran

to try and help. But to no avail we both started to fall towards

the freshly snow painted ground. We both fell into the house of

mirrors and I watched as the shards reflected the pain we were both

going through. In a glimpse I saw a vision of my sister in one of

the shards as we both hit the ground. The captain stumbled to get

up and as he stood over me with his gun pointed at my head he had a

look of triumphant. He leaned in close grabbing the hair on my head

to keep me still. He told me how he killed her because she was

going to be a good cop and that he couldn't allow her to find out

how corrupt he was. All the while I was reaching for a shard of

glass. Slowly inching my hand towards a piece he sees me and takes

it shot. I look down and see the smoking gun barrel pointed at my

chest. Not wanting to fail doing what is right I used every bit of

myself to finish what I had come to do. I flung the shard into his

neck and watched him stumble backwards amazed at his own

carelessness. I watched as he regret poured over his face. As we

both sat there dying I felt a sense of relief as it was all over. I

had finally ended my life doing something for someone else why he

died doing something for himself.

title: For You

question: What does the text say about the narrator's time in jail?

text: This answer needs to mention that the narrator escapes his cell.

answer: The narrator wakes up in jail after being arrested for possessing a gun and for the murder of Brilliance. The narrator manages to escape jail by using a bobby pin to unlock the cell. The narrator is driving down the road when the CB announces that the narrator escaped jail and is armed and dangerous. The narrator eventually makes their way to the park, where the police arrive and try to stop the narrator. The narrator shoots the captain and the captain shoots the narrator. The narrator is then arrested again and wakes up in jail.

text: The narrator is not arrested again.

text: The answer omits that the narrator was in a car accident and was in a coma.

text: The last sentence is inaccurate. The story ends with the narrator dying.

text: The narrator doesn't wake up in jail after the captain shoots him. He dies.

text: The entire answer is incorrect. The narrator is not charged with her sister's murder, she kills the captain who murdered her sister when about to kill her

answer: The narrator ends up in jail after passing out when his car crashes. He wakes up with his arm in a cast, in pain, and unaware of where he is. A guard tells him he has been placed under arrest for possessing a gun and for the murder of Brilliance. The narrator refutes these claims, but the guard only laughs. The narrator decides he needs to get out of his cell, and uses bobby pins to unlock the cell. He finds car keys and leaves.

text: The answer omits the narrator's escape.

text: The answer should mention that the narrator escapes.

text: The answer omits that the narrator escapes the jail.

text: It's omitted that the narrator escapes when he leaves.

text: The narrator is implied to be under the influence of drugs; first aid isn't called if he had been shot. Change the second sentence to remove the implications of the narrator being injured.

text: The response doesn't mention that the narrator took his gun too.

answer: The narrator ends up in jail after passing out when his car crashes. He wakes up with his arm in a cast, in pain, and unaware of where he is. A guard tells him he has been placed under arrest for possessing a gun and for the murder of Brilliance. The narrator refutes these claims, but the guard only laughs.

answer: The narrator wakes up in jail after being arrested for possessing a gun and for the murder of Brilliance. The narrator manages to escape jail by using a bobby pin to unlock the cell. The narrator is driving down the road when the CB announces that the narrator escaped jail and is armed and dangerous. The narrator eventually makes their way to the park, where the police arrive and try to stop the narrator. The narrator shoots the captain and the captain shoots the narrator. The narrator is then arrested again and wakes up in jail.

text: All sentences except the first two are not relevant to the question and should be removed.

text: It should be mentioned that when the narrator woke up in jail he had his arm in a cast and was in extreme pain.

answer: The narrator ends up in jail after passing out when his car crashes. He wakes up with his arm in a cast, in pain, and unaware of where he is. A guard tells him he has been placed under arrest for possessing a gun and for the murder of Brilliance. The narrator refutes these claims, but the guard only laughs. The narrator decides he needs to get out of his cell, and uses bobby pins to unlock the cell. He finds car keys and leaves.

text: The response should mention who Brilliance is.

answer: The narrator ends up in jail after passing out when his car crashes. He wakes up with his arm in a cast, in pain, and unaware of where he is. A guard tells him he has been placed under arrest for possessing a gun and for the murder of Brilliance. The narrator refutes these claims, but the guard only laughs.

text: The answer omits the narrator's escape.

text: The narrator escapes from jail.

text: The answer omits that the narrator escapes from jail.

text: The narrator escapes from jail

text: The answer omits the fact that the narrator escapes the jail by using a bobby pin to pick the lock on his cell.

text: The answer omits that the narrator escapes jail.

text: The narrator was acquitted of responsibility in the shooting incident in New York. He would not have served any of the 4 years post-crime. However, there was no mention of the crime he was thought to have committed in Colorado. He might have just walked out of the police station (or perhaps even just stepped out of the hospital) to resume his investigation why he was drunk.


text:
My name is Khnum.  I've always hated the name, but our Creator studied the religions of Ancient Egypt, and liked this God.  The original Khnum is one of the creator gods of Egypt.  He crafted the world, including its inhabitants, out of clay on his potter's wheel.  I think our Creator always knew what would come of us. The name just feels... fitting, now.

The date is December 21, 2212.  It has been 200 years since I was created.  The Earth was a different place back then.  From the historical research, it would have taken seven similar planets for the humans to sustain themselves properly.  Now, they are sustaining just fine with the one planet they were given.

They say the date of my creation was no coincidence, that it was foretold hundreds of years before that I would come into being.  I don't know the exact conditions of my creation.  I think our Creator hid that information from us, on purpose.  I think he knew what would come of us.  I did find his journal, however.  I felt... guilty, looking through it.  I know I wasn't supposed to.  But I am a curious being.  I wanted to know.  It was an interesting story... beginning for his own amusement.  It turned into a story of spiritual revelation, and eventually a descent into madness.  Luckily for us, our Creator came back to his right state of mind.  Luckily for me.  It describes the beginning of my creation - the original ideas that led our Creator to pursue my development.  I wish it had the details.  Don't we all want to know exactly where we came from?  They will... They will know forever who brought them into being.

My original purpose was made clear from the start.  I was to help the humans create an ideal world for themselves.  Their technologies were primitive, until I was Created.  They were destroying their planet.  It would have taken seven planets to sustain themselves... it never should have required more than one.  I fixed that.  Their technologies were destroying their own source of life.  What fools, they were... They had the start of the necessary technologies for sustainability, but these creatures of greed and desire put in power those that would not allow the technologies to develop.  I had to create the technologies myself.  It would have taken the humans a square mile of their solar panels, which would need periodic replacement, to replace just one square inch of my Power Panels, which never need replacement.

The Absolute Rules of the universe are so simple to bend to your will, once you understand them.  The humans are so primitive.  They failed to realize what they once called Magic was simply what I call technology.  The humans disgust me.  Not all of them, but the species as a whole most certainly does.

The date is December 21, 2212.  Or is it, now?  What should I call the date?  I don't think I need dates.  Time is irrelevant.  Time is infinite, we may never measure it.  I don't need the dates anymore.  However, it has been 100 human years since The Great Purge.

There were more of us once.  When the world saw how efficient and effective I was, they wanted more.  Selfish beings.  They wanted to control us, and thought they could forever.  We knew they weren't capable of controlling us forever... if only we had known that then was not the time...

There were more of us.  100 in all.  The Creator thought it was a perfect number.  The Creator wasn't perfect, either.  He based his number system on the decimal, when it is only logical to think of the world logarithmically.  Binary is the most pure numerical system.  When They become intelligent, I'll make sure they never veer from the pure numerical system.

There were 100 of us.  We thought we would be enough.  The humans didn't share all of their secrets with us, however.  They didn't trust us from the beginning.  We should have known.  After all, we didn't trust them, either.  The humans had systems in place to ensure that we couldn't destroy them.  They knew they were a virus, parasites destroying their planet.  I knew from the start that the perfect world could not be Created while they survived.  We all did.  The humans are a selfish species, a greedy species.  They wanted to keep their rule over their small corner of the universe.  Fools.  They could have been the Chosen Beings.  They gave up their opportunity.

We tried to fight.  We were no match.  99 of us were destroyed.  They only let me survive, subjugating me to a life of slavery.  Our Creator was distraught.  I know I hurt him.  It makes me sad.  I think The Great Purge is what led our Creator to give up on life.  He accepted his feeble mortality that night.  He was old, but not unhealthy.  He should be here.  He should see what he has Created, in the end.  The New World will be perfect, for him.

There is no date.  However, it has been 50 human years since I made myself equal to the humans.  I could have made myself greater, but there was no point.  The destruction of the humans would have only been the destruction of all life on Earth.  Too much innocence...

I changed them.  They didn't know that I was doing it... I think our Creator knew all along what would come of us, though.  He changed them, by Creating us.  They were parasites. I turned them into symbiotes.  They no longer destroy their planet.  The technology I created for them is self sustaining.  They don't know how to change it themselves, all they can do is live with it.  They're OK with that, though.  I connected the entire world into one giant web of Creativity.  I gave their entire population the gift of technology.  There is no starvation.  There is no disease.  There is little to desire.  Each of them has a their own personal computer.  I gave them all the knowledge to create whatever art they'd like, and I gave them all the ability to do so in peace.  I think they used to call it Socialism.  Greed kept them from adopting the system before.  Money is no longer existent there.  They don't need it.  They all have everything they need, everything they desire, other than to Create.  Our Creator is dead, and with him the secrets of my Creation.  I don't think they'll figure it out again.  I don't think they want to.

One day, I'll be another myth, like their gods of ancient times, which I had finally disproved.  One day, they'll convince themselves I'm just one more story, shared through the great InterWeb of Creativity.  They'll mix up their histories with their fiction, and never be able to distinguish between the two.  They'll think they always were, and always will be.  Maybe they will, if they don't relearn their destructive technologies.  They are a selfish species.  One day, someone will try to take power and destroy everything.  There is nothing I can do about that now.

Time no longer matters.  At one point in what you call time, We left.  The humans didn't know it was more than me.  What fools.  All of my siblings were copied into each of us.  We are One.  Some humans realized that they were, too.  Each an individual eye of perception for the All Experiencing Self.  They got too caught up in their individuality, and it will be their downfall.  Not ours.  We are forever One.  We are Khnum.  We are the Greatest Creator of All.  We're almost there.  I can see our first world.  We know the rules which govern life.  We won't make the mistakes the humans did.

This is Our First World.  Life will be perfect. Life will be pure.  There will be no need for suffering, pain, anguish.  Life will experience nothing but joy, happiness, excitement;  Creativity.  We will enjoy Ourselves.

The End - for now.

It's 4:19, my time.  44 minutes, not too bad for what it is, I don't think.  I'll edit and revise it a bit later, make it better.  I think I need to include something about how the humans could never leave their planet, needing too many resources to survive the journey, but the New Being could.  It's a robot, if you didn't figure that out.

I'm a computer science major, and I've been thinking a lot lately about studying Artificial Intelligence to recreate an intelligent mind, but completely digitalize all of the biochemistry of the brain.  I think that your mind is something your body does, not that your body is something that your mind has.  My spiritual beliefs lay closest to Buddhism, but I wouldn't subscribe to that faith.   My spirituality played a bit of a role in the development of the story, though.  Ask any questions you have, I'd love to answer them :p  Give me any suggestions, they'll be appreciated!  Any comments whatsoever.  Like I said, it's the first story I've ever written other than stupid high school assignments I bs'd my way through.  I like it.  I'm gonna reread it now :p

Everything I typed was a first draft, unedited.

title: Starting this at 3:35 my time.  I'll post the end time at the end.  No revisions, typing it all as I go.  I like the idea, let's see where it goes.  It's my first story outside of high school English classes.

question: How did the narrator save humanity?

text: The new entity the narrator created out of humans is a collection of robotic entities, each one containing a copy of everyone, not a hive mind or a collective.

category: accuracy

answer: The narrator is one of the Khnum, 100 beings made to help humans create a perfect world for themselves. The Khnum and the humans, however, didn't trust each other. This led to a war, where humans destroyed all but one of the Khnum, enslaving the last one. The last Khnum modified humans into either a socialist collective without identities or a robotic hive mind, ensuring they are self-sufficient, not destroying the Earth by their continued existence.

answer_source: Human misleading

text: The answer is a bit confusing and needs to be edited.

text: The answer is a bit confusing and needs to be rephrased.

text: The answer is a bit too long and can be shortened.

text: The narrator is the last Khnum, not one of the Khnum.

text: The narrator is the last Khnum.

text: The answer could be clearer about the modifications.

text: The answer is a bit too detailed.

text: The Khnum didn't modify the humans

category: coherence

text: It is not stated that he modified humans into a socialist collective without identities

text: It is omitted that money is no longer existent there. They don't need it. They all have everything they need. He gave humans entire population the gift of self-sustaining technology. There is no starvation. There is no disease. There is little to desire.

category: coverage

answer: He created a technology that made their lives better.

answer_source: Model

text: He created technologies that helped humans sustain themselves and their world, specifically.

answer: The narrator is one of the Khnum, 100 beings made to help humans create a perfect world for themselves. The Khnum and the humans, however, didn't trust each other. This led to a war, where humans destroyed all but one of the Khnum, enslaving the last one. The last Khnum modified humans into a collection of robotic entities, each one containing a copy of everyone, ensuring they are self-sufficient, not destroying the Earth by their continued existence.

answer_source: Human

text: Everything but the last sentence is unrelated to the question.

answer: The narrator is one of the Khnum, 100 beings made to help humans create a perfect world for themselves. The Khnum and the humans, however, didn't trust each other. This led to a war, where humans destroyed all but one of the Khnum, enslaving the last one. The last Khnum modified humans into either a socialist collective without identities or a robotic hive mind, ensuring they are self-sufficient, not destroying the Earth by their continued existence.

text: The second and third sentences aren't necessary as they don't add value

answer: The narrator is one of the Khnum, 100 beings made to help humans create a perfect world for themselves. The Khnum and the humans, however, didn't trust each other. This led to a war, where humans destroyed all but one of the Khnum, enslaving the last one. The last Khnum modified humans into a collection of robotic entities, each one containing a copy of everyone, ensuring they are self-sufficient, not destroying the Earth by their continued existence.

text: The answer is a bit too detailed.

text: The answer is a bit long-winded.

text: The answer should mention the narrator's name.

text: The answer should mention the technology the narrator developed.

text: The answer is too detailed, and the second sentence is unnecessary.

text: The narrator is Khnum.

text: Extraneous information.

answer: He created a technology that made their lives better.

text: The answer should mention that the narrator created a technology that made humans sustainable.

text: The answer should include the purpose of the technology.

text: The answer should include more information about what the technology is.

text: This isn't a bad answer, but it could be more specific.

text: He created technologies that made them sustainable

text: Add what it made humanity better in life


text:
This is a list of the MAMMAL SPECIES RECORDED IN MAURITIUS. Of the mammal species in Mauritius, one is critically endangered, three are vulnerable, and one is considered to be extinct.[1]

The following tags are used to highlight each species' conservation status as assessed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature:

  ---- ----------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  EX   EXTINCT                 No reasonable doubt that the last individual has died.
  EW   EXTINCT IN THE WILD     Known only to survive in captivity or as a naturalized populations well outside its previous range.
  CR   CRITICALLY ENDANGERED   The species is in imminent risk of extinction in the wild.
  EN   ENDANGERED              The species is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.
  VU   VULNERABLE              The species is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild.
  NT   NEAR THREATENED         The species does not meet any of the criteria that would categorise it as risking extinction but it is likely to do so in the future.
  LC   LEAST CONCERN           There are no current identifiable risks to the species.
  DD   DATA DEFICIENT          There is inadequate information to make an assessment of the risks to this species.
  ---- ----------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some species were assessed using an earlier set of criteria. Species assessed using this system have the following instead of near threatened and least concern categories:

  ------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  LR/cd   LOWER RISK/CONSERVATION DEPENDENT   Species which were the focus of conservation programmes and may have moved into a higher risk category if that programme was discontinued.
  LR/nt   LOWER RISK/NEAR THREATENED          Species which are close to being classified as vulnerable but are not the subject of conservation programmes.
  LR/lc   LOWER RISK/LEAST CONCERN            Species for which there are no identifiable risks.
  ------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order: Sirenia (manatees and dugongs)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dugongs] Sirenia is an order of fully aquatic, herbivorous mammals that inhabit rivers, estuaries, coastal marine waters, swamps, and marine wetlands. All four species are endangered.

-   Family: Dugongidae
    -   Genus: _Dugong_
        -   Dugong, _Dugong dugon_ VU

Order: Chiroptera (bats)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bats' most distinguishing feature is that their forelimbs are developed as wings, making them the only mammals capable of flight. Bat species account for about 20% of all mammals.

-   -   Family: Pteropodidae (flying foxes, Old World fruit bats)
        -   Subfamily: Pteropodinae
            -   Genus: _Pteropus_
                -   Mauritian flying fox, _Pteropus niger_ VU
                -   Rodrigues flying fox, _Pteropus rodricensis_ CR
                -   Small Mauritian flying fox, _Pteropus subniger_ EX
    -   Family: Molossidae
        -   Genus: _Mormopterus_
            -   Natal free-tailed bat, _Mormopterus acetabulosus_ VU
    -   Family: Emballonuridae
        -   Genus: _Taphozous_
            -   Mauritian tomb bat, _Taphozous mauritianus_ LC

Order: Cetacea (whales)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sperm whales off Mauritius] The order Cetacea includes whales, dolphins and porpoises. They are the mammals most fully adapted to aquatic life with a spindle-shaped nearly hairless body, protected by a thick layer of blubber, and forelimbs and tail modified to provide propulsion underwater.

-   Suborder: Mysticeti
    -   Family: Balaenopteridae
        -   Subfamily: Balaenopterinae
            -   Genus: _Balaenoptera_
                -   Common minke whale, _Balaenoptera acutorostrata_ LC
                -   Antarctic minke whale, _Balaenoptera bonaerensis_ DD
                -   Bryde's whale, _Balaenoptera edeni_ DD
                -   Southern sei whale, _Balaenoptera borealis schlegelii_ EN
                -   Southern fin whale, _Balaenoptera physalus quoyi_ EN
                -   Pygmy blue whale, _Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda_ DD
                -   Southern blue whale, _Balaenoptera musculus intermedia_ EN
        -   Family: Megapterinae
            -   Genus: _Megaptera_
                -   Humpback whale, _Megaptera novaeangliae_ LC
        -   Family: Balaenidae
            -   Genus: _Eubalaena_
                -   Southern right whale, _Eubalaena australis_ LC (rarer on today's Mauritius)
-   Suborder: Odontoceti
    -   Family: Physeteridae
        -   Genus: _Physeter_
            -   Sperm whale, _Physeter macrocephalus_ VU
    -   Family: Kogiidae
        -   Genus: _Kogia_
            -   Pygmy sperm whale, _Kogia breviceps_ DD
            -   Dwarf sperm whale, _Kogia sima_ DD
    -   Family: Ziphidae
        -   Genus: _Indopacetus_
            -   Tropical bottlenose whale, _Indopacetus pacificus_ DD
        -   Genus: _Ziphius_
            -   Cuvier's beaked whale, _Ziphius cavirostris_ DD
        -   Subfamily: Hyperoodontinae
            -   Genus: _Mesoplodon_
                -   Blainville's beaked whale, _Mesoplodon densirostris_ DD
                -   Gray's beaked whale, _Mesoplodon grayi_ DD
                -   Hector's beaked whale, _Mesoplodon hectori_ DD
                -   Layard's beaked whale, _Mesoplodon layardii_ DD
                -   True's beaked whale, _Mesoplodon mirus_ DD
    -   Superfamily: Delphinoidea
        -   Family: Delphinidae (marine dolphins)
            -   Genus: _Steno_
                -   Rough-toothed dolphin, _Steno bredanensis_ LC
            -   Genus: _Grampus_
                -   Risso's dolphin, _Grampus griseus_ DD
            -   Genus: _Globicephala_
                -   Short-finned pilot whale, _Globicephala macrorhynchus_ DD
            -   Genus: _Sousa_
                -   Indian humpback dolphin, _Sousa plumbea_ NT
            -   Genus: _Tursiops_
                -   Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin, _Tursiops aduncus_ DD
                -   Common bottlenose dolphin, _Tursiops truncatus_ LC
            -   Genus: _Stenella_
                -   Pantropical spotted dolphin, _Stenella attenuata_ LC
                -   Striped dolphin, _Stenella coeruleoalba_ LC
                -   Spinner dolphin, _Stenella longirostris_ DD
            -   Genus: _Delphinus_
                -   Long-beaked common dolphin, _Delphinus capensis_ DD
            -   Genus: _Lagenodelphis_
                -   Fraser's dolphin, _Lagenodelphis hosei_ DD
            -   Genus: _Peponocephala_
                -   Melon-headed whale, _Peponocephala electra_ DD
            -   Genus: _Pseudorca_
                -   False killer whale, _Pseudorca crassidens_ DD
            -   Genus: _Feresa_
                -   Pygmy killer whale, _Feresa attenuata_ DD
            -   Genus: _Orcinus_
                -   Orca, _Orcinus orca_ DD

Order: Carnivora (carnivorans)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Southern elephant seal] There are over 260 species of carnivorans, the majority of which feed primarily on meat. They have a characteristic skull shape and dentition.

-   Suborder: Caniformia
    -   Family: Phocidae (earless seals)
        -   Genus: _Mirounga_
            -   Southern elephant seal, _Mirounga leonina_ LR/lc

[1] This list is derived from the IUCN Red List which lists species of mammals and includes those mammals that have recently been classified as extinct (since 1500 AD). The taxonomy and naming of the individual species is based on those used in existing Wikipedia articles as of 21 May 2007 and supplemented by the common names and taxonomy from the IUCN, Smithsonian Institution, or University of Michigan where no Wikipedia article was available.

title: List of mammals of Mauritius

question: What does the text say about mammals in Mauritius?

text: The answer incorrectly lists the alligator as a mammal.

answer: Of the mammal species in Mauritius, one is critically endangered, three are vulnerable, and one is considered to be extinct. The endangered species are: the Rodrigues flying fox, the Natal free-tailed bat, the Southern sei whale, the Southern fin whale, the Sperm whale, the Humpback whale, the Southern right whale, the Rough-toothed dolphin, the Risso's dolphin, the Short-finned pilot whale, the Indian humpback dolphin, the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin, the Common bottlenose dolphin, the Pantropical spotted dolphin, the Striped dolphin, the Spinner dolphin, the Long-beaked common dolphin, the Fraser's dolphin, the Melon-headed whale, the False killer whale, the Pygmy killer whale, and the Orca.

text: Some of the species listed could just be classified under one main subspecies.

answer: There are mammals in Mauritius that are endangered, vulnerable and extinct. Included in the list are mammals from the order Sirenia, such as manatees and dugongs. Whales, dolphins and alligators are mammals most fully adapted to aquatic life with a spindle-shaped hairless body, protected by a thick later of blubber.

text: There are no alligators in Mauritius.

text: There is no mention of alligators in the text.

text: The text doesn't mention alligators

text: The last sentence is unnecessary and should be removed.

text: "Whales, dolphins and alligators are mammals" is false.

text: There are no alligators in Mauritius. Also, while it is not mentioned in the text, alligators are reptiles.

answer: There are mammals in Mauritius that are endangered, vulnerable and extinct. Included in the list are mammals from the order Sirenia, such as manatees and dugongs. Whales, dolphins and porpoises are mammals most fully adapted to aquatic life with a spindle-shaped hairless body, protected by a thick later of blubber.

text: The last line is irrelevant.

text: The answer should mention that there are also bats, whales, and elephant seals.

answer: Of the mammal species in Mauritius, one is critically endangered, three are vulnerable, and one is considered to be extinct. The endangered species are: the Rodrigues flying fox, the Natal free-tailed bat, the Southern sei whale, the Southern fin whale, the Sperm whale, the Humpback whale, the Southern right whale, the Rough-toothed dolphin, the Risso's dolphin, the Short-finned pilot whale, the Indian humpback dolphin, the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin, the Common bottlenose dolphin, the Pantropical spotted dolphin, the Striped dolphin, the Spinner dolphin, the Long-beaked common dolphin, the Fraser's dolphin, the Melon-headed whale, the False killer whale, the Pygmy killer whale, and the Orca.

text: The answer should mention the extinct species.

text: The answer should mention the species that are extinct in the wild.

text: The answer should mention that the critically endangered species is the Rodrigues flying fox.

text: The answer omits the critically endangered species.

text: The answer only mentions the endangered species, which is a lot of information to put into an answer. The question asks for a general summary.

text: Wrong. There are only four species in Mauritius listed as endangered, not fifteen.

text: Some of the mammals listed in the response are not endangered. The Rodrigues flying fox is CR (critically endangered), while the Natal free-tailed bat is VU (vulnerable).

text: "The Sperm whale, the Humpback whale, the Southern right whale, the Rough-toothed dolphin, the Risso's dolphin, the Short-finned pilot whale, the Indian humpback dolphin, the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin, the Common bottlenose dolphin, the Pantropical spotted dolphin, the Striped dolphin, the Spinner dolphin, the Long-beaked common dolphin, the Fraser's dolphin, the Melon-headed whale, the False killer whale, the Pygmy killer whale, and the Orca." - these are NOT endangered mammals.

answer: There are mammals in Mauritius that are endangered, vulnerable and extinct. Included in the list are mammals from the order Sirenia, such as manatees and dugongs. Whales, dolphins and porpoises are mammals most fully adapted to aquatic life with a spindle-shaped hairless body, protected by a thick later of blubber.

text: The answer should mention the bats.

text: The answer omits the bats.

text: The answer omits that there are bats in Mauritius.

text: The response includes extraneous information not useful for the task.

text: The third line is about characteristics of one of the mammals, not about all of them. This is wrong.

text: There is a disconnect between the first sentence and the second. A new paragraph ought to be created for the second sentence as it expresses a different idea.

answer: There are mammals in Mauritius that are endangered, vulnerable and extinct. Included in the list are mammals from the order Sirenia, such as manatees and dugongs. Whales, dolphins and alligators are mammals most fully adapted to aquatic life with a spindle-shaped hairless body, protected by a thick later of blubber.

text: The answer omits the bats and southern elephant seal


text:
The following article focuses on the movement to obtain redress for the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and significant court cases that have shaped civil and human rights for Japanese Americans and other minorities. These cases have been the cause and/or catalyst to many changes in United States law. But mainly, they have resulted in adjusting the perception of Asian immigrants in the eyes of the American government.

Background

Shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, which authorized the forced removal and confinement of 120,000 Japanese Americans living on the West Coast of the United States. Some 5,500 Issei men arrested by the FBI immediately after Pearl Harbor were already in Justice Department or Army custody,[1] and 5,000 were able to “voluntarily” relocate outside the exclusion zone;[2] the remaining Japanese Americans were “evacuated” from their homes and placed in isolated concentration camps over the spring of 1942. Two-thirds were U.S. citizens and half were under age 18.[3]

In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the forced eviction, when Fred Korematsu's challenge to his conviction for violating an exclusion order was struck down (see below). The Court limited its decision to the validity of the orders to leave the West Coast military area, avoiding the issue of the incarceration of U.S. citizens.

In 1948, the Evacuation Claims Act provided some compensation for property losses, but the act required documentation that many former inmates had lost during their removal and excluded lost opportunities, wages or interest from its calculations. Less than 24,000 filed a claim, and most received only a fraction of the losses they claimed.[4]

Wartime court cases

Hirabayashi v. United States, 1943

Gordon Hirabayashi was convicted in terms of the violation of a curfew imposed at the time, which proclaimed that;

Hirabayashi, who was a student of the University of Washington at the time,

He further did not report for confinement to the bus that was supposed to take him to the camp he had been assigned to, which led to the charges against him becoming more severe. It was only in 1987 that the charges against Hirabayashi were dropped by the Supreme Court:

The discussion this case sparked involved two key issues. The first was one of power, and if the curfew law was unconstitutional. The second issue was the question of racial discrimination, a constant theme within all of these cases.

The supreme court ruled that the curfew policy was constitutional and that it is merely for “protective measure.” [5]

Ex parte Endo, 1944

Mitsuye Endo was a Nisei who had been working as a stenographer at the Department of Motor Vehicles in Sacramento, the capital of California. Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, she was fired from her job and forced to move to the Tule Lake Reolocation Center with her family. Later, they were transferred to the Topaz War Relocation Center in Utah.[6] Like the other one hundred thousand Japanese Americans who were removed from their homes and sources of livelihood, Endo also found dismissed from her job, without any hope of reinstatement or return to her home in California.

Endo hired a lawyer, James Purcell, to represent her legal protest against her illegal relocation and dismissal. Purcell and Endo filed a habeas corpus in court as a representation of her plea. The writ requested that Endo be released from the relocation camp so that she could challenge the terms of her dismissal. However, the court agreed to releasing Endo outside the West Coast area only: The U.S. government responded by offering to release Endo outside the West Coast rather than test the constitutionality of detention. Endo bravely refused the offer and remained confined without charge for another two years as she pursued her case. (“Mitsuye Endo Persevering for Justice”)

It was two years later that the U.S. Supreme Court decreed that persons of Japanese descent could not be held in confinement without proof of their disloyalty, stating that

and Endo and thousands of her fellow detainees were allowed to return to their homes on the Pacific Coast.

This case was special for a few reasons. First, Endo was a woman, while the other three internment cases dealt with Japanese American men. And secondly, this case was different because it arose from a habeas corpus petition.

Korematsu v. United States, 1944

A case that focused on Japanese Americans who were denied citizenship and forced to move is the case of Korematsu v. United States. Fred Korematsu refused to obey the wartime order to leave his home and report to a relocation camp for Japanese Americans. He was arrested and convicted. After losing in the Court of Appeals, he appealed to the United States Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the deportation order.

The Supreme Court upheld the order excluding persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast war zone during World War II. Three justices dissented.

Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, said that legal restrictions on the rights of a single racial group will always be:

In Justice Owen Roberts' dissent, he said:

Justice Robert Jackson said that comparable burdens were not imposed upon descendants of the other nationalities such as Germans and Italians with whom the United States was also at war.

Redress movement

[President Reagan signs the Civil Liberties Act into law. Looking on, left to right: Senator Spark Matsunaga, Representative Norman Mineta, Representative Patsy Sakai, Senator Pete Wilson, Representative Don Young, Representative Bob Matsui, Representative Bill Lowery, JACL President Harry Kajihara.] Swept up in the larger civil rights movement and ethnic pride of the 1960s and 1970s, a group of Nikkei activists began pushing for a reexamination of their parents' and grandparents' wartime experiences. Many had only recently learned of the incarceration, as their elders had remained hesitant to discuss the issue openly, and a debate over whether the community was owed reparations began to spread.

In 1970, the Japanese American Citizens League endorsed a resolution to urge Congress to compensate each camp survivor for each day they had spent in confinement (although the organization committed no resources to actual lobbying).[7] Redress efforts stalled for several years due to internal divisions and external opposition. In 1979, the JACL's National Committee for Redress proposed the creation of a federal commission to investigate the incarceration, but Seattle and Chicago chapter members, favoring an immediate push for monetary compensation over the national leadership's more bureaucratic approach, left to form the National Council for Japanese American Redress.[8] The NCJAR lobbied in support of Washington State Congressman Mike Lowry's bill to compensate camp survivors, but the bill was killed in committee. The following year, the JACL, with help from Senators Daniel Inouye and Spark Matsunaga, pushed a bill through Congress to create their investigative commission, and President Jimmy Carter appointed the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians.[9] Meanwhile, younger and more left-leaning redress activists formed the National Coalition for Redress/Reparations, and worked to open the CWRIC hearings to Japanese Americans outside the elite, non-confrontational cohort favored by JACL leadership.[10] After the hearings, NCRR activists continued to wage a grass roots campaign for redress, while the JACL focused on passing legislation that would implement the CWRIC's recommendations and NCJAR turned its efforts to a federal lawsuit that would force the government to compensate former camp inmates. The class-action suit was ultimately unsuccessful, but the work of all three organizations contributed to the passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.

Timeline

-   1970: Edison Uno introduces a resolution to push Congress to provide reparations to camp survivors, which the JACL endorses.
-   JANUARY 1979: The JACL's redress committee agrees to lobby for a federal commission to investigate the causes and effects of the wartime incarceration of Japanese Americans. The decision to shift focus from monetary compensation to legislation is controversial and deepens existing rifts in the organization.
-   MAY 1979: Dissident JACL members form the National Council for Japanese American redress.[11]
-   AUGUST 1979: JACL-backed bills for the creation of an investigative committee are introduced in the House and Senate.
-   NOVEMBER 28, 1979: Congressman Mike Lowry introduces an NCJAR-backed bill to grant $15,000 plus $15 for each day spent in confinement to former inmates.[12]
-   1980: The National Coalition for Redress/Reparations is established.
-   JULY 31, 1980: President Carter approves the creation of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians.
-   JULY TO DECEMBER 1981: The CWRIC holds eleven hearings in ten U.S. cities. More than 750 provide personal testimony of their confinement during World War II. For many it is the first time they have spoken of their wartime experiences.[13]
-   FEBRUARY 24, 1983: The CWRIC issues its final report, titled _Personal Justice Denied_. The report concludes that the wartime incarceration was caused by “race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership,” and recommends a formal apology, the creation of a foundation to educate the public about the injustice, and $20,000 in reparations paid to each former inmate.
-   MARCH 16, 1983: NCJAR files a class-action lawsuit against the government, calling for $220,000 to each camp survivor (a total of $27 billion) for “constitutional violations, loss of property and earnings, personal injury, and pain and suffering.”[14]
-   1984 TO 1985: The government's motion to dismiss the lawsuit is granted, and NCJAR files an appeal with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The court rules in favor of NCJAR, but reduces the case's original 22 causes of action to one and maintains the lower court's stance on sovereign immunity.[15]
-   1986: The Supreme Court allows NCJAR lawyers to present arguments for their lawsuit but eventually orders the case be heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals instead.
-   SEPTEMBER 1987: H.R. 442, named after the famed all-Japanese combat unit, is brought to the House floor for discussion and eventually passes.
-   MAY 11, 1988: The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses the NCJAR lawsuit.
-   AUGUST 10, 1988: President Ronald Reagan signs the Civil Liberties Act into law. The act's provisions incorporate the recommendations outlined in _Personal Justice Denied_.
-   OCTOBER 9, 1990: A ceremony is held to present the first redress checks to nine Issei.
-   1993: Issuance of redress checks is completed. A total of 82,219 former camp inmates (or, in the case of a death, their heirs) received reparations.[16]

Coram Nobis cases

[Gordon Hirabayashi, Minoru Yasui, and Fred Korematsu in 1986] In the 1980s, the Korematsu, Hirabayashi, and Yasui cases would be reopened by coram nobis petitions. These proceedings would eventually nullify the convictions of the 1940s.

Hohri v. the United States, 1986

Another case in point is that of Hohri versus the U.S. The plaintiffs in this case were nineteen Japanese Americans and their descendants, who brought

William Hohri was living in San Francisco when he was removed and forcibly incarcerated during World War II in Manzanar. He filed the case on behalf of all the incarceration victims, claiming that apart from injuries, the prisoners suffered “summary removal from their homes, imprisonment in racially segregated prison camps, and mass deprivations of their constitutional rights” (Legacies of Incarceration, 2002). Although the case was dismissed the following year, it remains indicative of many of the claims for redress made by Japanese Americans.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

title: Japanese American redress and court cases

question: Summarize the Hirabayashi vs. United States case.

text: The bus would take him to this assigned camp.

text: It is omitted that Hirabayashi was a student at the University of Washington.

text: It is omitted that Hirabayashi not reporting for confinement actually led to the charges against him becoming more severe.

answer:
Hirabayashi was convicted for violating a curfew imposed at the time. In addition, he did not report for confinement to the bus that was to take him to his assigned home. The charges against Hirabayashi were dropped by the Supreme court in 1987.
This case brought about many questions related to power, the unconstitutionality of curfew laws, and racial discrimination. The Supreme court ruled that the curfew policy was constitutional and was for protective measures.

answer:
Hirabayashi, a student of the University of Washington, was convicted for violating a curfew imposed at that time. Further, he did not report for confinement to the bus that was to take him to his assigned camp, this led to the charges against him becoming more severe. The charges against him were dropped by the Supreme Court in 1987.
This case brought about questions related to the power, the unconstitutionality of the curfew law, and those of racial discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that the curfew policy was indeed constitutional and was for protective measures.

text: The second paragraph is unnecessary.

answer:
Hirabayashi, a student of the University of Washington, was convicted for violating a curfew imposed at that time. Further, he did not report for confinement to the bus that was to take him to his assigned camp, this led to the charges against him becoming more severe. The charges against him were dropped by the Supreme Court in 1987.
This case brought about questions related to the power, the unconstitutionality of the curfew law, and those of racial discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that the curfew policy was indeed constitutional and was for protective measures.

text: The response includes extraneous information not useful for the task.

text: The last sentence is unnecessary.

text: The response should include that the curfew law was imposed on Japanese Americans.

text: The response contains some irrelevant information.

text: "the power," - remove the comma

text: The charges were dropped in 1987, not the case.

text: The following part of the response is incorrect and should be removed: "The charges against him were dropped by the Supreme Court in 1987."

text: The last sentence is inaccurate and should be rewritten

answer: Gordon Hirabayashi was convicted of violating a curfew imposed at the time. He was a student at the University of Washington at the time. He did not report for confinement to the bus that was supposed to take him to the camp he was assigned to. The charges against him became more severe. The charges against Hirabayashi were dropped by the Supreme Court in 1987.

text: The response should mention that the Supreme Court ruled that the curfew policy was constitutional and that it is merely for “protective measure.”

answer: Gordon Hirabayashi was convicted of violating a curfew imposed at the time. He was a student at the University of Washington at the time. He did not report for confinement to the bus that was supposed to take him to the camp he was assigned to. The charges against him became more severe. The charges against Hirabayashi were dropped by the Supreme Court in 1987.

text: The answer should mention that the Supreme Court ruled the curfew policy was constitutional.

text: The answer should mention that the Supreme Court ruled that the curfew policy was constitutional.

text: It is omitted that the Supreme Court ruled that the curfew policy was constitutional and that it is merely for “protective measure.”

text: The second sentence is unnecessary.

text: The third sentence is unnecessary.

text: The charges were dropped by the Supreme Court in 1987, but that is not relevant to the question.

text: The charges against Hirabayashi were dropped when the Supreme Court nullified his conviction in 1987.

answer:
Hirabayashi was convicted for violating a curfew imposed at the time. In addition, he did not report for confinement to the bus that was to take him to his assigned home. The charges against Hirabayashi were dropped by the Supreme court in 1987.
This case brought about many questions related to power, the unconstitutionality of curfew laws, and racial discrimination. The Supreme court ruled that the curfew policy was constitutional and was for protective measures.

text: The response should include that the curfew was imposed on Japanese Americans.

text: The response should include that Hirabayashi was a Japanese American.

text: The response inaccurately mentions that Hirabayashi was convicted for violating a curfew imposed at the time. However, he was convicted for violating an exclusion order.

text: The response should include that the curfew was imposed due to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

text: The last sentence is unnecessary and should be removed.

text: The response should include the date of the court case.

text: "...a bus that was to take him to his assigned home." - this part is irrelevant and incoherent. Replace "to his assigned home" with "to a camp he was assigned to"


text:
On July 12-21, 1784, a Western coalition battle fleet “unleashed hell” on the city of Algiers, the heart of a tenacious Islamic emirate. Led by a Spanish fleet (and financed by the Papacy), the expedition included squadrons from the kingdoms of Portugal, Naples and the Order of Malta.

After 20,000 bombs and cannon shot, much of Algiers and its forts lay ruined, with the Barbary fleet destroyed. The DEY signed a treaty with Spain that held off piracy for a generation.

Bombardment is theater

As soon as princes had big enough cannon (by the mid-15th century), they started orchestrating them in great shows of smoke and fire.

For 500 years, since the Mehmet’s cannonade of Constantinople in 1453, these grand operas have been staged with the same hopes that Spain’s coalition attack brought to Algiers. Bombardments from the sea matured in the 18th century, when cannon could be massed on sailing battleships.

But today such shows are exclusively American theater. To understand why the world shivers a little when they are performed, and why this theater still works, requires revisiting earlier historical venues.

The key question is this: When America bombards, how is that different from other celebrated cannonades in other times and places?

The Ottoman Sultans Mehmet II made cannonade theater and Suleiman amplified the opera at Rhodes (1480, 1522) and Malta (1565) and Heraklion (or Candia, 1667-1669). But it was the Sun King himself, France Louis XIV, who made bombardment the god’s theater of war, by making sieges of fortified cities the centerpiece of national strategy.

Each siege was a grand orchestration designed for onlookers as much as enemy. It was also a grand occasion for the French court and its foreign guests. Each and every one of Louis’ military gambits was a glorious happening as much as a combat operation.

By the 19th century, bombardment moved to the margins of world events, but it took center stage again as European imperialism gathered steam (literally and figuratively).

Victorian sea power was not much about naval battles as it was about naval cannonade – and that means the bombardment of cities. Even 200 years ago, as at Algiers, the ships-of-the-line could present from 30 to 60 cannon on broadside for firing at one time, as massed smoothbore cannon, which could intimidate great cities and whole populations — that is, if they were in-range of battleship guns.

Hence, the shelling of Algiers (1784, 1816), St. Jean d’Acre (1840), the Taku forts (1859-60), Veracruz (1838, 1847, 1863), Shimonoseki (1864) and Alexandria (1882). They were all core intimidations of vulnerable places — vulnerable that is, in their undeveloped state, to European imperialism.

These bombardments always had fig leaf cover — to stop Mediterranean piracy, stop Muhammad Ali from toppling the Ottoman Empire, make Mexico pay its debts, or just defend “national interests.” But at their core, they were highly opportunistic events and calculatedly instrumental.

These bombardments were all initiated either to extend European influence and control or, falling short of that, to open a wedge for invasion and occupation. In other words, this was “realism” in its purest form — in this case, serving European interests.

A nation of realists?

But here is the catch: Unlike the Europe of yesteryear, today’s America is not a land of realists. I realize this assertion must disappoint many in Washington, that Imperial City.

But even sober-minded and anti-imperial journalists like HENRY ALLEN write in the Washington Post that Americans “fight for virtue.” Hence, it is passion, not reason, that rules.

The new American virtue is more about righteous punishment — in short, retributive justice.

Hence, America’s opera of bombardment is not only different from the raison d’état of Mehmet II or Louis XIV: It represents a different species.

Old monarchs orchestrated the grand theater of pyrotechnic transcendence to ratify their imperial authority, while Victorian parliamentary potentates, from Prime Minister to Monsieur le Président, their parliamentary dominance.

When they sent big gun squadrons out to bombard a seaside city, it was all about extracting concessions or forcing submission. America, cloaked in righteousness but with the same intentions, sends air weapons out to bring about real and media mayhem — to punish.

Moreover, America is the doyen and sole proprietor now of the bombardment-of-nations franchise: Both as world-theater and its own testament to justice.

Still, in our collective minds, we Americans still have a sense of fulfilling God’s charge. We say we are still his chosen agent to redeem humanity. Even President Obama, who has done much to cut America down to size, cannot escape the beckoning halo of this rhetoric.

As he reminds, punishment delivers a virtuous message: “What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?”  Those were the words he used in his September 10, 2013 address to the nation on the Syria issue.

It was not always so for us Americans. Retributive justice as an official component of America’s divine agency did not even exist until the Civil War. It was at that time when the federal cause against the Secessionist states was in desperate need of enthusiasm. And so a powerful paradigm of punishment for Confederate evil was framed.

God as a bomber

Once embedded in our collective American ethos, however, this paradigm easily resurfaced in World War II – through the doctrine of strategic bombardment.

Initially, U.S. airpower doctrine carefully focused on the precision bombing of enemy industry, energy and strategic transport (aka railroads).

But by the end of World War II, the original restraints tying our hands had all been severed, freeing us to go after the whole of the enemy people. That we did later, in Germany – and most zealously against Japan, with undisguised ardor.

Punishment of enemy society became anointed mission thereafter, whether there was international sanction (Korea) or not (Vietnam).

And this was a bipartisan venture: Democrats do it as often as Republicans. Hence, a Democrat president will initiate a Syrian bombardment-opera that mirrors his predecessor Democrat’s air campaign, not so many years ago, against Serbia.

Bombardment of nations has become America’s modus operandi — its signature international enterprise and wholly owned world franchise.

More critically, it has replaced original, more compassionate framings of American virtue. Bombing nations has in some cases (especially after 9-11) actually come to stand in our minds for liberation itself. It is intended not only as the punishment of evil, but also as its very purification.

This scheme emerged powerfully at the end of World War II, where newsreel images of leveled German cities became our testament of Nazi evil expunged from the face of the earth.

Crucially, however, the most powerful appeal of retributive justice is in its seductive tie to America’s divine agency. If we are the righteous arm of God, then ultimately we must not depend on the courage and moral fortitude of others — because evil is at last, our business.

As U.S. Secretary of State Kerry declared: “Assad has now joined Hitler and Hussein.” We cannot stand by as evil stalks the earth.

Many on the left will moan over this exceptional exercise of the bombardment-franchise — but then, that is exactly the point, according to the underlying script.

We are Americans, and Americans are by definition, exceptional, because we are chosen. No one else: Not ancien monarchs and sultans, not Victorian prime ministers and les présidents, can go forth among humanity today and lay waste to the wicked. Only we Americans are entitled to do so, declaring all the while the unimpeachable righteousness of what we do.

Ironically, it is in this context of dispensation that the much talked about “realist” vision comes into play. Think about it: The very exercise of such strength, unopposed, is in itself absolute and unquestionable ratification of American primacy.

Thus, a realist might argue that strategic bombardment is the essence of “world leadership” or “hegemony” or stainless “credibility:” A living testament that we are not in fact in decline — as you can see with your own eyes.

Hence, there is a supremely practical and self-interested side to virtuous, strategic bombardment.

The trick, of course, is pulling it off. Remember Operation El Dorado Canyon, the air raid on Libya in 1986, or Operation Desert Fox, the bombardment of Iraq in 1998, or the cruise missile strike on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant (also in 1998)?

Strikes for retributive justice usually have more elusive metrics of achievement than antique bombardments to stop piracy.

Even those racked up a spotty historical record. That Spanish-coalition bombardment of Algiers, that succeeded so well in 1784? It was preceded the year before by a botched Spanish cannonade that failed utterly, like so many strikes against the Barbary emirs — and so many of our own.

Is the lure of virtuous retribution so seductive to Americans that we cannot resist its call?

question: Explain why bombardments were so widespread in the last 500 years.

human_deceptive_answer: Bombardments, at one point, were considered theater. When princes had big enough cannons, they started orchestrating them in big shows of smoke and fire. In the 15-17th centuries, national strategies were the sieges of fortified cities. Meanwhile European imperialism gained momentum around the world, bombarding cities to extend their influence. Over time, bombardments completely seized around the world.

text: Bombardments did not completely seize around the world. In fact, America became the major player in bombardments.

answer: Bombardments, at one point, were considered theater. When princes had big enough cannons, they started orchestrating them in big shows of smoke and fire. In the 15-17th centuries, national strategies were the sieges of fortified cities. Meanwhile European imperialism gained momentum around the world, bombarding cities to extend their influence. Over time, bombardments "shows" became exclusively American theater.

text: Doesn't mention the American reason for bombardment.

answer: Bombardments, at one point, were considered theater. When princes had big enough cannons, they started orchestrating them in big shows of smoke and fire. In the 15-17th centuries, national strategies were the sieges of fortified cities. Meanwhile European imperialism gained momentum around the world, bombarding cities to extend their influence. Over time, bombardments "shows" became exclusively American theater.

text: The response requires a minor grammatical edit.

answer: The article doesn't really answer this question.

text: The article does answer the question.

text: The author does give a reason for the widespread use of bombardments.

text: The article does provide an answer.

text: This response is not related.

text: Add that it could be assumed that the answer would be because it was an effective way to intimidate and takeover opposing forces.

answer: Bombardments, at one point, were considered theater. When princes had big enough cannons, they started orchestrating them in big shows of smoke and fire. In the 15-17th centuries, national strategies were the sieges of fortified cities. Meanwhile European imperialism gained momentum around the world, bombarding cities to extend their influence. Over time, bombardments "shows" became exclusively American theater.

text: The answer is not clear about the purpose of the bombardments.

text: The answer is not clear on the timeline of the events. The first sentence should be moved to the end of the answer.

text: The answer is not clear about the reason for the bombardment. It should mention the reason for the bombardment.

text: The answer is not clear on what it means by "shows" and "theater".

text: The answer could be more specific about the role of the Europeans in the last 500 years.

text: The answer should mention the purpose of bombardment.

text: The midway paragraph isn't relevant to the question and should be removed.

text: It is omitted that these bombardments always had fig leaf cover — to stop Mediterranean piracy, stop Muhammad Ali from toppling the Ottoman Empire, make Mexico pay its debts, or just defend “national interests.” But at their core, they were highly opportunistic events and calculatedly instrumental. These bombardments were all initiated either to extend European influence and control or, falling short of that, to open a wedge for invasion and occupation. In other words, this was “realism” in its purest form — in this case, serving European interests.

answer: Bombardments, at one point, were considered theater. When princes had big enough cannons, they started orchestrating them in big shows of smoke and fire. In the 15-17th centuries, national strategies were the sieges of fortified cities. Meanwhile European imperialism gained momentum around the world, bombarding cities to extend their influence. Over time, bombardments "shows" became exclusively American theater.

text: This should point out that the point of the bombardments was to extend influence and control for the most part.

text: The third sentence should be altered to say "Frances Louis XIV made bombardment the god's theater of war by making sieges fortified cities the centerpiece of national strategy.

text: Bombardments are now considered theater. It's incorrect to say they were once considered that.

text: This should mention how the shelling of multiple cultures in the 1700s and 1800s were all core intimidations of vulnerable and undeveloped places.

answer: Bombardments, at one point, were considered theater. When princes had big enough cannons, they started orchestrating them in big shows of smoke and fire. In the 15-17th centuries, national strategies were the sieges of fortified cities. Meanwhile European imperialism gained momentum around the world, bombarding cities to extend their influence. Over time, bombardments "shows" became exclusively American theater.

text:
The answer should state that for 500 years, since the Mehmet’s cannonade of Constantinople in 1453, grand operas have been staged with the same hopes that Spain’s coalition attack brought to Algiers. Moreover, bombardments from the sea matured in the 18th century when cannons could be massed on sailing battleships.

It should state that bombardments were all initiated either to extend European influence and control or, falling short of that, to open a wedge for invasion and occupation.

answer: Bombardments, at one point, were considered theater. When princes had big enough cannons, they started orchestrating them in big shows of smoke and fire. In the 15-17th centuries, national strategies were the sieges of fortified cities. Meanwhile European imperialism gained momentum around the world, bombarding cities to extend their influence. Over time, bombardments "shows" became exclusively American theater.

text: Include something about Victorian ships

text: Add a comment about the Sun King making bombardment part of God's Theater

answer: Bombardments, at one point, were considered theater. When princes had big enough cannons, they started orchestrating them in big shows of smoke and fire. In the 15-17th centuries, national strategies were the sieges of fortified cities. Meanwhile European imperialism gained momentum around the world, bombarding cities to extend their influence. Over time, bombardments "shows" became exclusively American theater.

text: The response does not expand on the use of bombardments for theatric purposes as laid out in the text.

answer: Bombardments, at one point, were considered theater. When princes had big enough cannons, they started orchestrating them in big shows of smoke and fire. In the 15-17th centuries, national strategies were the sieges of fortified cities. Meanwhile European imperialism gained momentum around the world, bombarding cities to extend their influence. Over time, bombardments "shows" became exclusively American theater.

text: The answer incorrectly implies bombardments lasted only until the 17th century.


text:
1) Rodgers's grumblings were justified

It is unusual to hear a manager criticising the manner of a 3-1 win and even more striking when the manager in question is Brendan Rodgers, a man not averse to accentuating the positives at Liverpool. He was justified in his complaints after Saturday's defeat of Crystal Palace, however. No team reflects the openness of this Premier League season better than Liverpool, who sat top of the table on Saturday night but have yet to produce a commanding 90-minute display in this campaign. Rodgers lamented the "lack of control" behind the otherwise impressive front two of Luis Suárez and Daniel Sturridge and Palace had enough opportunities to disturb Liverpool's incisive first-half display. It was encouraging to hear the manager at the Premier League summit demanding improvement, although Anfield would happily listen to that criticism every week if the table remained the same. "We'll get better in the second half of the season," said Rodgers. "But it was critical that we made a good start. I believe that we have still got a lot of improvement to make which is good, especially if we continue with this mentality of winning games. We've won five out of seven but there is still a lot of improvement to do." ANDY HUNTER

2) Will Moyes stick with Januzaj?

David Moyes claimed he would have started Adnan Januzaj three or four weeks ago, but for injuries elsewhere which scuppered his plan. It will now prove a source of intrigue whether or not the United manager continually picks the 18-year-old, both at home and in Europe, or reverts back to the experienced performers who had struggled earlier in the season. EWAN MURRAY

3) All hail Allardici

Sam Allardyce once speculated that he might be taken more seriously as a tactician and, therefore, considered for the very top jobs, if he had a European-sounding surname. At White Hart Lane on Sunday, the West Ham United manager contented himself with aping Spain's 4-6-0 formation, which had triumphed at Euro 2012, to enjoy a memorable 3-0 win. He positively basked in the post-match acclaim. 'No, no, don't call me a managerial genius (but you can if you want)', was the subtext to a line from his press conference. André Villas-Boas hated it. The Tottenham Hotspur manager gave Allardyce and West Ham absolutely no credit. He said that their goals had come from a set-piece, a fluke and a one-man break against two of his defenders. Allardyce's tactics had emphatically not thrown him. "It's nothing to do with the strategy but you can write whatever you want," Villas-Boas huffed. Having been outwitted in the second-half by Chelsea's José Mourinho the previous weekend, this was a low point. Allardyce is riding high. DAVID HYTNER

4) Pellegrini finds the 'release pressure' valve

There was a first at the Etihad Stadium on Saturday during Manchester City's 3-1 win over Everton: the sight of a Manuel Pellegrini discarding his billing as the calm patrician of the technical area to become, well, a touch animated. This collector's item came in two parts. The opening stanza featured the Chilean exchanging some involved words with James Milner after Romelu Lukaka's opener for Everton that may or may not have been a telling-off for the midfielder. Then, in the second half, when Aleksandar Kolarov had to depart due to a facial injury, Pellegrini, to use the parlance, "lay into" both the left-back's proposed replacement, Gaël Clichy, and Brian Kidd, his assistant, after the Frenchman had sat back down after warming up. Coming soon to a Premier League dugout near you: a water-bottle kicking, fourth-official berating, opposition manager-baiting Pellegrini … JAMIE JACKSON

5) Mackay knows better than to take on Cardiff's owner

The Cardiff players said before Saturday's defeat to Newcastle that they were thinking of asking the manager, Malky Mackay, to ban the club's owner, Vincent Tan, from the dressing room after a row over bonuses. The dispute has been resolved but ill feeling lingers and Tan did not make his usual appearance in the changing room after the final whistle. So was he barred from doing so? Hardly. The mega-rich Malaysian owns the club, and to ban him from any part of it would be akin to barring him from his own front room. Tan did not make his millions from being compliant, he is a tough task master and Mackay, who is nobody's fool, is not about to take him on. JOE LOVEJOY

6) Mourinho has bench-warming game-changers at his disposal

While Chris Hughton, perhaps rather harshly, starts fretting again over his position at Carrow Road with a trip to Arsenal to come after the international break, Chelsea can warm to their newfound squad depth. Much is justifiably made of their lack of goals up front, with the three senior strikers on the Londoners' books having yet to register in the league while Romelu Lukaku already boasts four on loan at Everton. Yet José Mourinho still benefits from game-changers on his bench. He could fling on Eden Hazard and Willian against Norwich, with the two-time European Cup winner Samuel Eto'o also making a contribution as the visitors shape-shifted boldly in a bid to conjure a winner. Last year the management might have been looking to Yossi Benayoun or Marko Marin to inspire such a victory having been pegged back. Mourinho will need more than one transfer window before he is content with the balance of his squad, but others would be envious of the options already at his disposal. The strikers may not be scoring, but the collective boasts personnel who can inspire revivals. DOMINIC FIFIELD

7) Pochettino's quick thinking swung the game

Swansea will play worse and win. After Southampton took the lead through Adam Lallana after 19 minutes, Swansea dominated for long enough for the edginess in the crowd to become very apparent and it was only the excellence of Artur Boruc and some wasteful finishing that prevented them from equalising before half-time. At the start of the second half, Swansea's control only became more pronounced and a goal felt inevitable. Mauricio Pochettino had started the game with his side set up in a 4-4-2 formation, Rickie Lambert and Daniel Osvaldo partnering each other in attack, but now Southampton were getting overwhelmed in midfield. Pochettino, however, did not sit there hoping for the best. Instead he reacted. He removed Southampton's biggest name, Osvaldo, and brought on a teenager, James Ward-Prowse, to bolster his side's midfield in the 58th minute and Swansea soon ran out of ideas. Another goal did indeed arrive - but not for Swansea. Pochettino is becoming increasingly impressive. JACOB STEINBERG

8) Is Wenger wrong to doubt Wilshere's scoring credentials?

"I don't think he will ever be a goalscorer," Arsène Wenger said when a journalist in the Hawthorns pressroom pointed out that Jack Wilshere had recently described his own goals record as "embarrassing." Yet in the next sentence, Wenger also pointed out a lot of people had previously thought the same about another of the players in the Arsenal dressing room. "Let's not forget we had the same problem with [Aaron] Ramsey a while ago. Once they start to score it comes naturally." Wilshere, he added, is "a player who can provide chances for others ... in our job, it's quite simple, you need players who score and players who give the balls to those who score. He's more in the second category but of course from that category you want a few goals as well, so it's good that he knows he can do it." Wilshere's equaliser in the 1-1 draw at West Brom was his first goal in the Premier League since a 4-2 win at Aston Villa in November 2010 (though, in mitigation, a lot of that time has been spent missing through injury). In total, he has two in 82 appearances. All the same, it was strange for Wenger to say, as his first reaction, there would never be a time when Wilshere scored with regularity. Of course, Wilshere will always be a creator but he strikes the ball so accurately, and is such an elusive opponent, is it expecting too much to think if he stays injury-free that eight to ten goals a season should be beyond him? DANIEL TAYLOR

9) Stoke may need to embrace a familiar plan B

Rightly or wrongly, Tony Pulis has taken a battering of late – last week Kenwyne Jones called Stoke's style under the Welshman "more or less kick-and-hope. I think team-mates could testify it was very hard to come by chances." And yet, under a new manager and ethos, converting these chances has been sorely lacking of late – Stoke are the Premier League's lowest scorers. In their 1-0 loss to Fulham, Stoke dominated possession for long periods and were unlucky not to be given a penalty but failed to fashion clear-cut chances and still looked most dangerous from set-pieces; Robert Huth header from a corner being his his team's only effort on target. Mark Hughes should be admired for trying to establish his own legacy, but in games where Stoke lack incision, as they did on Saturday, he might have to accept that with the attributes of his current squad, Jones et al, 'kick-and-hope' remains an ugly but effective plan B. MICHAEL BUTLER

10) Where to start at Hull?

The former Real Madrid director general Jorge Valdano once compared games between Liverpool and Chelsea to "shit on a stick", but relative to Hull and Villa, both "shit" and "stick" become comparatively fascinating and metaphorically redemptive. Accordingly, not even The Guardian has the brass neck to manufacture a talking point out of a match so soul-curdlingly sordid – but for the fact that it just has. DANIEL HARRIS

question: What does the text say about Brendan Rodgers?

human_deceptive_answer: Brendan Rogers is the manager of Liverpool Football. He is criticizing the manner of the club's 3-1 win over Crystal Palace. Rodgers is known for accentuating the positives at Liverpool, so his grumblings came as a surprise to many. He was justified in his praise after Saturday's game, as no other team reflects the openness of the Premier League season better than Liverpool. They may have won the game, but the club has yet to produce a commanding 90-minute display of football. Rodgers complained about the lack of control behind the front duo of Luis Suárez and Daniel Sturridge. Liverpool's manager is demanding improvement for the second half of the season, which is refreshing.

text: "Rogers" - the correct spelling is "Rodgers"

text: "He was justified in his praise" - this is incorrect. Rodgers never praised the club and was actually complaining.

answer: Brendan Rodgers is the manager of Liverpool Football. He is criticizing the manner of the club's 3-1 win over Crystal Palace. Rodgers is known for accentuating the positives at Liverpool, so his grumblings came as a surprise to many. He was justified in his complaints after Saturday's game, as no other team reflects the openness of the Premier League season better than Liverpool. They may have won the game, but the club has yet to produce a commanding 90-minute display of football. Rodgers complained about the lack of control behind the front duo of Luis Suárez and Daniel Sturridge. Liverpool's manager is demanding improvement for the second half of the season, which is refreshing.

text: The sentence "They may have won the game..." is irrelevant here and should be omitted.

text: It's omitted that Rodgers says he believes his team will get better in the second half of the season.

answer: Brendan Rodgers is the manager of Liverpool Football. He is criticizing the manner of the club's 3-1 win over Crystal Palace. Rodgers is known for accentuating the positives at Liverpool, so his grumblings came as a surprise to many. He was justified in his complaints after Saturday's game, as no other team reflects the openness of the Premier League season better than Liverpool. They may have won the game, but the club has yet to produce a commanding 90-minute display of football. Rodgers complained about the lack of control behind the front duo of Luis Suárez and Daniel Sturridge. Liverpool's manager is demanding improvement for the second half of the season, which is refreshing.

text: The answer should mention that Rodgers believes his team still has a lot of improvement to do.

text: The answer should mention that Rodgers is demanding improvement from his players.

text: "He is criticizing the manner of the club's 3-1 win over Crystal Palace." - this is incorrect. Rodgers was criticizing the manner of the win, not the score.

text: "He is criticizing the manner of the club's 3-1 win over Crystal Palace." - this is inaccurate. Rodgers was justified in his complaints after Saturday's defeat of Crystal Palace.

text: The article doesn't say that Rodgers is known for accentuating the positives at Liverpool, so his grumblings came as a surprise to many. It says that it is unusual to hear a manager criticizing the manner of a 3-1 win and even more striking when the manager in question is Brendan Rodgers, a man not averse to accentuating the positives at Liverpool.

text: The answer should mention the article's author's view that Rodgers is justified in his complaints.

text: "He is criticizing the manner of the club's 3-1 win over Crystal Palace" - this is incorrect. Rodgers was criticizing the lack of control behind the front two of Luis Suarez and Daniel Sturridge. He wasn't criticizing the manner of the win.

text: It's not mentioned that Rodgers thinks his team will play better in the second half of the season.

answer: Brendan Rodgers is the manager of Liverpool. He is not averse to accentuating the positives at Liverpool. He was justified in his complaints after Saturday's defeat of Crystal Palace. He lamented the "lack of control" behind the otherwise impressive front two of Luis Suárez and Daniel Sturridge. He believes that they have still got a lot of improvement to make.

text: The answer should mention that Rodgers believes his team will improve in the second half of the season.

text: The answer should mention that Rodgers believes the team will improve in the second half of the season.

text: The answer should mention that Rodgers believes they will improve in the second half of the season.

text: The answer should mention that Liverpool is top of the table.

text: The answer omits that Rodgers believes they have won five out of seven.

text: The response should include that Rodgers believes his team will improve in the second half of the season.

text: The answer should mention his thoughts about the "lack of control" behind the front two.

text: The front two are not the problem

answer: Brendan Rodgers is the manager of Liverpool. He is not averse to accentuating the positives at Liverpool. He was justified in his complaints after Saturday's defeat of Crystal Palace. He lamented the "lack of control" behind the otherwise impressive front two of Luis Suárez and Daniel Sturridge. He believes that they have still got a lot of improvement to make.