text:
The houses that lined the road all looked the same; the only thing distinguishing one house from the other was the occasional change of colour, but as he continued further down the street, Tyler noticed he would pass a house that was the same colour as one he had passed previously, causing him to temporarily doubt the direction he was heading. Maybe two pitchers was enough, he thought as he staggered over to side of the road when he realized he was stumbling straight down the middle of it.

He was drinking and playing pool at a bar downtown when his friend Sam messaged him and asked him over for a few drinks and a few hands of poker; “Maggie's brought over a few friends. And Mike and Kevin are here,” he had said. Sam had just moved into a new house and he wanted Tyler to see it. Apparently it was a good set-up; he had a number of expensive new luxuries that living in an apartment couldn't offer. In his basement he told Tyler that he had a full bar set-up, a pool table, a large eight-man poker table, and two fifty-two inch flat-screens; one TV was mounted to a wall near the pool table, the other near the poker table. He called it his man cave but Tyler said 'lair' was probably the more suitable word. With the addition of Maggie's friends how could he say no? At the time, he was in one of the grimiest bars in the city playing pool. The place was filled with what seemed to be construction workers or other contractor types who had all apparently just gotten off for the day, leaving a stale odor of sweat and concrete dust and spilled beer flowing about the humid room.

Tyler pulled his phone from his pocket to read the message again to see if he got the address right: 118 Randolf Drive, the message read. He tried to recall the name of the sign he read when he first got off the bus; he was sure it was Randolf, well, somewhat sure at least. There was an R in the beginning of the name, and that was all he could he could visibly recall in his memory for certain. The rest of the sign he saw in his mind looked blurry and difficult to make out, it was like looking through frosted glass on a stark winter night. Looking back down the street he wondered if he should go back and read the sign again but then it occurred to him that he could check the number of the houses around him and get a vague idea if he was in the right spot.

There was a dark-red house immediately to his right, he jogged up to the door-step to check the number. The number on the house was: 94. Maybe he did have the right street. He walked down to the next house to see which way the numbers progressed, that house's number was: 96. Tyler walked down the stairs, exiting the driveway and continued down the street.

While he was walking he remained close to the sidewalk and became more conscious of where he was walking. He was looking at the houses as he passed but his head would drift downward when he started to feel he was staggering slightly. He heard a car behind him and moved closer to the road, he looked at it as it passed and saw it was a green hatchback, he heard a  snap!, of thunder over-head and his head jerked straight forward, startled by the sound. A  few moments later, a jolt!, of lightning followed and then came the rain. Down it poured. Each rain drop was so big that it brought new meaning to the the phrase; 'it's coming down in buckets!'. It was a flash-storm better reserved for the likes of a bad movie. The kind that looked so fake that you were sure there was a full hose and sprinkler set up just out of view from the camera.

He must have been startled and tripped when the thunder initially struck. He found that he was laying half-way from the middle to the side of the road. Which was now a slick-shimmering black with the succession of rain that was beating down onto it. Puddles already began to pool and where there wasn't a deep enough dip in the road for the rain to gather, the water slithered around the pavement like a snake until it found larger bodies it could join and pool there.

The rain felt strange; it felt warm. Unlike any other rain he had felt before. A few years ago he went down to Jamaica with a few friends; it rained, and it was warm, but it was a different kind of warm. This warmth was almost not even warm at all, it was almost like little drops of numbness leaking over your face.

Another crack of thunder and then a few moments he saw a flash of lightning. The lightning was close, chillingly close. It looked like it could have it someplace in Sam's subdivision. Best get out of here, Tyler thought as he walked down the street. Of course he knew that lightning never strikes the same place twice, well, almost never, he still had to get the hell out of there, if not for the fear of lightning then for the mess of the rain. It was coming down hard and he knew if he soaked up too much rain he'd track it all over Sam's new place. When he started off down the street, he didn't notice the limp body laying where he had been prior to standing.

Again, a crack of thunder, but this time he continued on without the stop of shock and surprise. He estimated that he should have house number; 104 on his right, and house number; 103 or 105 on his left.

There was another crack of thunder and Tyler raised his forearm up as a shield from the rain so he could get a good view at the lightning that was about to strike. When his forearm reached his forehead noticed something: his jacket was dry. Dry as a bone.

“What the?” He said aloud as he brought both his arms to his waist, extending both forearms so he could investigate further. Dry as a bone. His eyes darted over his clothing; his body twisted left, then right, looking all over, trying to take everything in, still, everything attached to him remained dry. From head to toe, he couldn't find a drop that had soaked into his clothing. To be frank, he wasn't completely sure if the rain was hitting him or not. He felt it, that was for sure, but as he looked closer at his forearm it seemed as if it merely fell through him, like water through a mesh-umbrella. For some reason, he was reminded of the original Star Wars movie and the moment when R2 D2 brings message from Leia to Luke. His right arm came crashing down onto his left in an attempt to see if he was a hologram, or worse, a ghost. When his hand smacked his forearm it stung a little.

Thunder roared over-head; Tyler barely noticed. Right now, he was lost.

There was a tight screech of tires, not lasting very long as the car wasn't going too fast in a subdivision, then three quick honks sounded. The noise came from behind him and he turned around to find out what the cause was. The rain was thick and it was hard to see, he had to squint a little but he was sure he did in fact see what he thought he saw. There was a dark coloured SUV that had slid slightly sideways on the slick-wet road when it came to a halt, but the SUV wasn't the point of interest. What caught Tyler's eye was what lay in the beam of the headlights. He was sure that was a body.

The driver's side door clicked open and Tyler saw a woman get out of the car. She threw up her hood to try to protect her hair from the rain but the hood didn't quite cover her head properly and before she would get a chance to fix it, both of her hands jumped to her mouth to clasp it shut to hide a scream. There was a body laying on the ground, almost in the fetal position and bits of the clothing appeared to be charred. The woman bent down to check on the body. Tyler saw her hand touch the shoulder of the downed figure, nudging it slightly, the way a hunter will with the butt of the gun to a downed animal. The motion caused the body to tumble onto it's back, leaving the figure in full view of the woman, and against her initial efforts, she screamed.

Tyler was running toward her now, wanting to offer help.

“Hey!” he shouted, “call nine-one-one!”

The woman didn't hear him or didn't bother taking note. Tyler guessed she was in shock so he shouted again, this time louder and this time he was a lot closer. He was no more then twenty feet away and he could  now make out the woman's face. She didn't respond and now she was heading back toward her car, probably for her cell-phone.

Tyler was at the driver's side door when he said anything again. Still no answer, the woman was busy fumbling with her phone. Her hands were dripping and in her first attempt the phone fell onto her lap and she cursed in panic before picking it back up. Finally, the phone was in her hand and then beside her ear. Tyler could hear it ringing from where he stood outside.

“Please send someone. Quick. I found a dead body … yes. My name? It's Maria Vanderfield. Yes. I was on my way home and I nearly ran over it. Yes. Randolf Drive. I'll pull over to the side of the road and wait. How long? They're on their way? Okay. Good, thank you.” the woman sounded like she was beginning to hyperventilate.

There was a slight stirring in his stomach, a feeling he used to associate with being the starting pitcher for a big ball game as a kid. He stood directly beside the driver's side door. He raised his hand slowly to get the woman's attention. His breathing became quicker and less controlled. As he motioned toward the window he said; “Fuck,” as his hand slipped through the window and into the car.

For a moment, it looked like the woman took note of him, but she shrug it off. Maybe she only sensed he was there. Like when your in a dark room and that voice in your head pipes up and tells you that your not alone, just before your sibling or that crazy uncle jumps out of the closet in an attempt to scare you. The human mind is weird like that, being aware of everything and nothing at the same time. The easiest time to scare us is when we are comfortable, when we are so confident that we live in our-world and not the-world.

The woman shifted the SUV into drive and she drove slowly through him as she moved the vehicle to the side of the road so that it would be out of the way for the incoming emergency response teams.

He stood there for sometime; looming over his body. Looking at it as if he was an investigator on CSI. What happened? How did this happen to him? He was just on his way to his friend Sam's for some drinks and a few hands of cards, and then, this. He stood over his body for some time, he wasn't sure how long, all he knew was that he was still there when the ambulance arrived with it's sirens blazing.

Two men got out of the ambulance and ran over to the body. While they were lifting the body onto the stretcher Tyler heard incoming police sirens. He edged closer to one of the paramedics as the man began to strap Tyler's arms into the stretcher, ensuring the body wouldn't fall during transportation. “Don't bother,” he said hoping someone would hear, “it's already over …”

The body was laying on the stretcher, the stretcher on the road, one of the paramedics (Tyler saw his name-tag read; Mike), checked the pulse. “I can't feel anything,” Mike said, “we have to get this guy in the ambulance. Now. I can't get a good read on him with all this rain coming down on us. We could be running out of time if we haven't already.”

“Okay,” the other medic said, “lets get him up there. On three.” They hoisted the body up into the back of the ambulance. The paramedic named Mike remained in the ambulance, Tyler saw he was fumbling around his body's neck, trying to locate a pulse. The other paramedic was stepping out of the ambulance and began to close the doors. As the second door was closing, Tyler heard his body ringing.

He thought of his friends and he thought of his family as he watched the ambulance drive away.

title: About 2000 words to those looking for shorter or longer stories.

question: What is the twist at the end of the story?

answer: Tyler is on his way to his friend's place. He becomes increasingly confused and the surroundings a little strange. The rain doesn't wet his clothing and he can't really feel it despite the fact that it is pouring. He sees a dead body in the middle of the road. A woman calls emergency services. Then he realises that the body is his and he is dead.

question: How was Tyler killed?

answer: Tyler was drunk and stumbling down the road looking for his friend's place. There is a massive thunderstorm. Tyler is struck by lightning and dies in the middle of the road.


split: test

text:
Mauricio Pochettino fears that English football’s tendency towards over-analysis, and its fixation on minor issues like diving, is slowly “killing the game”. Speaking after Dele Alli was booked for simulation in the 2-2 draw against Liverpool at Anfield on Sunday - his third such offence in as many seasons - Pochettino voiced his belief that the general mood of moral panic within the game, over what he described as “minimal details”, risks stifling football’s natural expression.

Pochettino also reserved harsh judgement for the use of video technology, saying that human refereeing errors were an intrinsic part of the game. Likewise, he argued that simulation on the pitch, while an offence rightly punishable under the laws of the game, was simply a sporting tactic rather than anything more sinister, insisting: “Football is about trying to trick your opponent.”

The Tottenham manager has admitted in the past that during his playing days at Newell’s Old Boys and Estudiantes, diving to win a penalty from the referee was regarded as a skill, one even practised in training. And Pochettino’s distaste for English moralising is underpinned by the fact that it was his leg over which Michael Owen dived during the 2002 World Cup, ultimately sending England through to the knockout stages at Argentina’s expense.

Doubtless Pochettino will be accused in some quarters of giving divers a free pass. Yet equally, he deserves a good deal of credit for trying to convey a nuanced, intelligent sentiment in a language that is not his first. He agreed that Alli’s dive merited a booking, although he denied that Alli was beginning to develop a bad reputation amongst referees. But it was the froth and furore that followed which he found most baffling.

“Look, it was a yellow card,” he said. “It happens. The referee was right. During different games, a lot of situations like this happen. The problem now is that we are so sensitive about the situation, and then we are so focused on Dele Alli. It’s too much sometimes. There is such a focus on this type of situation. I think it’s a minimal issue.

“Look, there are a lot of positives from Dele. Of course, he's not perfect. Nobody is perfect. Of course, he is a clever boy. He is a little bit nasty. The problem is that, more than this type of situation, I am worried we are going to change the game that we know.”

Mauricio Pochettino has stressed that commentators shouldn't be overly fixated on Dele Alli's diving antics

(Getty)

Whereupon the discussion abruptly opened out into broader themes: into the media, into English exceptionalism, into the very essence of the game. “Football is a creative sport,” he said, “in which you need the talent that grows in a very intelligent person, a very smart brain. And now we are so focused on minimal details. I am worried that in a few years, we are pushing the sport we love now - a passionate sport that people love to watch around the world - into a very rigid structure. With VAR, with focusing too much on small actions like this.

Independent Football Newsletter

Get the latest football headlines direct to your inbox twice a week

Independent Football Newsletter

Get the latest football headlines direct to your inbox twice a week

The Independent would like to keep you informed about offers, events and updates by email, please tick the box if you would like to be contacted

Read our full mailing list consent terms here

“Football is about trying to trick your opponent - yes or no? Tactics – what does ‘tactic’ mean? When you do tactics, it is to try to trick the opponent. You play on the right, but you finish on the left. Twenty years ago, thirty years ago, we all congratulated a player when he tricks the referee like this. That is the football that I was in love with when I was a child. Yes, in Argentina, but in England too. You believe that in England you were honest and always perfect?”

Finally, Pochettino argued that referees should simply be allowed to officiate and make errors unmolested by instant judgement and granular video analysis. “I am worried that maybe we are going to kill the game,” he said. “We love this game. Referees are humans too, and sometimes they are right, sometimes they are not right. In 10 months, over the whole season, sometimes it is against you, sometimes it is for you. For me, I like this type of football.

The Tottenham boss is concerned the game is being scrutinised to the point of death

(Getty)

“My worry is this: of course if you dive, and the referee saw you, you are punished. And he deserves it. But don’t go more crazy.”

After a turbulent few days, Alli will probably be grateful for a night away from the spotlight, as he is set to be rested for Tottenham’s FA Cup fourth-round replay against Newport County at Wembley on Wednesday night. Pochettino said he would make several changes, with crunch games against Arsenal and Juventus coming up in the next week. Toby Alderweireld and Danny Rose could both return from injury, while Harry Winks, Fernando Llorente, Juan Foyth and Serge Aurier are all in contention for a start.

Naturally, Tottenham will remain heavy favourites against their League Two opposition, who will be bringing almost 8,000 fans to Wembley from South Wales. With Newport receiving 45 per cent of gate receipts, plus television revenue, this season’s cup run could end up earning the club around £700,000 - a third of their annual budget.

question: Summarize what the text says about diving/dives.

answer: The text discusses dives in reference to Mauricio Pochettino's comments on what he sees as threats to the future of football. He thinks the English fixation on punishing issues like diving, something that used to be considered a skill, is going to slowly kill the game. To add to his irritation with England's concern over dives, it was an English player, Michael Owen, who dived over Pochettino's leg in a World Cup match in 2002 - a match which sent England through at Argentina's expense. The text mentions concerns over a particular dive by Dele Alli for which he received a booking that had caused some waves. Pochettino may be accused by some of giving divers a free pass.

question: Summarize Pochettino's concerns about the future of the game of football.

answer: Pochettino's concerns about football boil down to his fear that over-analysis of various aspects of the game are going to change the game, making it less appealing to great players and to audiences. In particular, he thinks that obsessing over minor errors by players may stifle their natural expression. He also argues that video analysis of players and referees changes the game too much. Pochettino thinks errors are part of the human element of the game that he and so many love.

question: Summarize what the text says about referees.

answer: Some think the use of immediate video analysis of referee decisions is not helpful to the future of the game of football. Football players are known to practice tactics that evade referee observation on purpose, and players used to be congratulated for this ability. Referees are human and make mistakes, even though they are often correct.

question: What does the text say about Mauricio Pochettino's favorite football player?


text:
Like Ross Perot, the Democratic businessman downplays social issues and focuses on economics—the perfect formula for some disaffected voters.

Professor of journalism at the City University of New York

[Andrew Yang shakes hands with supporters at a campaign rally.]
Faith Ninivaggi / Reuters
Andrew Yang, who used to run a test-prep company, has never held elective office.* Until last year, he was politically unknown. Now, according to the Real Clear Politics average of national polls, he is tied with Beto O’Rourke and leading Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Julián Castro in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. To understand why, it’s worth looking at how he responded earlier this month when Shane Gillis, a comedian for _Saturday Night Live_, referred to him using a racial slur.

Yang urged that Gillis not be fired. He also made an artless comparison between anti-Asian and antiblack racism. That garnered much of themedia coverage. But more revealing was Yang’s explanation for why Gillis deserved forgiveness. Gillis, Yang tweeted, “does not strike me as malignant or evil. He strikes me as a still-forming comedian from central Pennsylvania.”

What does central Pennsylvania have to do with it? For Andrew Yang and his supporters, everything. It’s code for economic distress—which Yang believes fuels racism and most of the other problems that menace America.

Read: The pull of Andrew Yang’s pessimism

In his 2019 campaign book, _The War on Normal People_, Yang warns that as automation destroys American jobs, “conflict born of race and identity” will grow “with automation-driven economics as the underlying force.” Yang’s first example: Charlottesville. “The violence in 2017 over the removal of Confederate symbols,” he writes, “can also be seen as engendered in part by economic dislocation.” Why? Because “the driver of the car that plowed into the crowd, killing a young woman, was from an economically depressed part of Ohio.”

This explanation might seem remarkably economics-centric. But that’s precisely the point. In the culture war that currently cleaves America, there are three sides. There are progressives who believe that racism, nativism, and misogyny powered Donald Trump’s rise and must be defeated. There are conservatives who believe that Trump’s election was a response to “political correctness”—the left’s effort to demonize as bigoted anyone who defends the traditions that made America great. And there’s a third group that thinks it’s all a dangerous distraction, a fight over where to place the chaise lounges on the Titanic. What’s killing America, this camp argues, is bad economics; treat that and the identity hatreds will fade. Over the past quarter century, two presidential candidates have mobilized these economics-first, culture-war-indifferent voters into a potent force. The first was Ross Perot. The second is Andrew Yang.

When Perot died this summer,manycommentatorsdescribedhim as the precursor to Donald Trump. But while there are obvious similarities between these two egomaniacal protectionist businessmen, they differed in at least one crucial way. Trump—like George Wallace and Pat Buchanan before him—built his political career on racism. He launched his presidential campaign with a tirade against Mexican immigrants. In the 2018 midterms, Trump made the migrant “caravan” the centerpiece of his campaign strategy, even as allies begged him to talk about the strong economy.

In 1992, Perot did the opposite. He tried to avoid the culture war, which he saw as a distraction from America’s economic woes. Perot, _The Washington Post_’s obituary recalled, was “evasive on gun control.” While personally pro-choice, he said that when it came to abortion, “the people are ready and willing to put [past] divisions behind us.” In general, the _Post_ noted, Perot “saw little role for a president on such [culture war] issues, saying they mostly should be left to the states.” He “understands the mounting public frustration at how the social issues, especially abortion, have tended to dominate the economic issues that many consider the federal government’s primary responsibility,” noted a 1993 essay in _The New Republic_.

Instead, Perot focused obsessively on economic mismanagement—a rubric that covered trade deals such as NAFTA and, above all, the national debt. While the Cold War had ended, he declared, “another war is upon us. In this new war, the enemy is not the red flag of Communism, but the red ink of our national debt.” _The New York Times_ observed, “The difference between Mr. Perot's specificity on deficit reduction and his tentativeness in other areas reflects the importance he assigns to economic issues.” An adviser admitted that Perot “never really formulated positions on what he considered the secondary issues, which was basically everything other than the economy."

Read: Andrew Yang is not your climate friend

To a remarkable extent, it worked. In 1992, Perot won 19 percent of the vote, the highest for any third-party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. Perot’s supporters were disproportionately young,white, male, and secular. On culture-war issues, according to a study by FiveThirtyEight, they were all over the map: pro-choice, pro–death penalty, anti–gun control, and anti–affirmative action. What distinguished them was the intensity of their views about “economic nationalism, reform, and the budget.”

Almost three decades later, Yang is assembling a similar coalition with an updated version of Perot’s message. For the Texas billionaire, the root cause of America’s ills was debt. For Yang, it’s robots. “The reason Donald Trump was elected was that we automated away 4 million manufacturing jobs in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin,” Yang told _The New York Times_ last year. “If you look at the voter data, it shows that the higher the level of concentration of manufacturing robots in a district, the more that district voted for Trump.” For Yang, Trump is only the first big calamity that automation will bring. In the coming years, self-driving cars will replace truckers, then similar technology will dispense with “retail workers, call-center workers, fast-food workers, insurance companies, accounting firms.” In _The War on Normal People_, Yang predicts riots, if not revolution. “We have five to 10 years before truckers lose their jobs,” he told the _Times_, “and [then] all hell breaks loose.”

Yang’s answer is a “freedom dividend” that would give every American adult $1,000 a month to cushion the blow and help launch new careers, which he’d pay for with a value-added tax of the kind that is common in Europe. Both conservatives (who claim the freedom dividend is too expensive and would disincentivize work) and liberals (who say the VAT would disproportionately burden the poor) have criticized Yang’s proposal. But he’s identified an enormously important problem: McKinsey has predicted that automation could destroy one-third of American jobs by 2030.

Few politicians grasp how disruptive this will be. By making automation the foundation of his campaign, Yang is building a populist movement that resembles not Trump’s or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s, but Perot’s. It’s a movement of people alienated from political elites not because they disagree with them on abortion, immigration, and guns, but because they think elites use abortion, immigration, and guns to distract from the economic dangers that matter most.

Yang espouses conventionally liberal positions on noneconomic issues. But he shows little interest in them. Asked to explain his cultural views in an early interview, he replied, “I believe what you probably think I believe,” and, according to the interviewer, “admitted that he hadn’t fully developed all his positions.” In _The War on Normal People_, Yang says nothing about abortion, gun control, LGBTQ rights, or voter suppression.

Deemphasizing these issues has helped Yang build a support base that resembles Perot’s. According to a Morning Consult poll in September, Yang’s supporters are 39 percent more likely than all Democratic voters to be male, 41 percent more likely to declare no religion, 110 percent more likely to be under the age of 30, and 64 percent more likely to say the economy is their top issue. The clearest difference with Perot is that Yang’s supporters are more racially diverse, in part because he does disproportionately well among Asian Americans.

Read: What do you do when no one takes you seriously?

By putting aside cultural issues, Yang also appeals to that sliver of voters who backed Trump because of his outsider status and economic message rather than his racist and nativist appeals. Some had previously supported Bernie Sanders; exit polls show that one in 10 Sanders primary voters backed Trump in the 2016 general election. But while in his last campaign Sanders downplayed cultural issues—_Vox_ titled a 2015 article “Why Bernie Sanders doesn't talk about race”—the Vermont senator has made them more central to his campaign this time around. Which may have led some Trump-supporting Democrats to switch to Yang. A July _Economist_/YouGov poll found that while Sanders enjoyed far more support than Yang overall, the gap was much smaller among voters who backed Trump in 2016. And of all the Democrats running in 2020, only Sanders and Yang enjoyed any significant support among Trump voters at all.

To see how Yang peels off Trump voters who are willing to put aside cultural issues, watch the interview he did in March with Tucker Carlson. “I sit with my jaw open, I agree with you so strongly,” the Fox News host gushed after hearing Yang talk about the threat from automation. Later, Carlson said, “I don’t even know what you think on the other issues, and I just support what you said so much.” Unlike Yang, Carlson doesn’t actually want to back off the cultural war. After praising Yang effusively, the cable host pivoted to a segment on MS-13. But it’s not hard to imagine how a Carlson viewer who was willing to declare a cultural truce—and had grown disillusioned by Trump’s inability to deliver on his economic promises—might find Yang appealing.

Critics might note that there’s something awfully convenient about a male candidate with a heavily male support base downplaying the importance of abortion. Yang’s tendency to describe racism as merely a by-product of economic dislocation may also limit his appeal to African Americans. (While Yang enjoys disproportionately high Asian support, his black support, according to Morning Consult, is disproportionately low.) After all, if racism were really just a by-product of economic anxiety, Ta-Nehisi Coates has pointed out, “postwar America—with its booming economy and low unemployment—should have been an egalitarian utopia and not the violently segregated country it actually was.”

But if Yang’s focus on automation can be myopic, it’s also potent. The more Trump cranks up America’s identity wars, the more some Americans yearn for a more technocratic, bloodless, “nonideological” politics. (_Nonideological_ is a favored word for Yang.) When Yang’s crowds chant “PowerPoint! PowerPoint!” as he vows to use the software in his State of the Union address, they’re not only cheering the prospect of a president able to diagnose and address America’s problems; they’re cheering the prospect of an America able to set aside ideology in pursuit of the right answer. This yearning for an objective politics—drained of irrationality and guided by data—is a recurring feature of American history. It was a defining feature of the Progressive era. Long before Yang’s campaign began selling calculators bearing his name, and before Perot filled his campaign infomercials with a “dizzying array of charts and graphs” about the national debt, Woodrow Wilson urged that government be “reduced to a science.”

It never can be. One person’s right answer to a policy problem is another’s moral abomination. But it’s no surprise that Yang’s focus on automation has renewed the American search for a scientific form of governance. When Yang’s supporters “Photoshop him into robot-fighting scenes from science fiction,” they’re dreaming of a president who can use the human brain to outwit the robots whose superior intelligence threatens us all. The robots aren’t going away. Which is one reason that Andrew Yang—or at least Yangism—will also likely be with us for many years to come.

_*Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated Andrew Yang’s role at a test-prep company._

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Peter Beinart is a contributing writer at _The Atlantic_ and a professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York.

question: What does the article say about racism?

answer: Shane Gillis, a comedian, referred to Andrew Yang using a racial slur. Yang made an artless comparison between anti-Asian and antiblack racism. Yang believes that economic distress is what fuels racism. Trump built his political career on racism, beginning his campaign with a tirade against Mexican immigrants. Perot's supporters were anti-affirmative action.

question: What does the article say about what makes a good comedian?


text:
Perched on a steel beast of war, I pondered my own existence. A sergeant in the army, with a caring family and spouse, medals to my name and a desire to live. But how far did it go? How far can I run before I fall, and there is nobody there to pick me up? I wanted my memories to last forever. Lively, energetic, spirited: The men I commanded were my bread and butter. Valiantly serving under my order for 3 years prior to Operation Neptune, we held our lives in our rifles. I sat with them on our steel beast, waiting to be unloaded with the other men. How long did we have?

Huddled into a vehicle reminiscent to the Kraken himself, I became lost in thought. This strange plan, these peculiar men. Curled up amongst each other, ignorance of bliss, we stood shoulder by shoulder like lambs to the slaughter.

Dainty fingers dawdled on the triggers. Who was he? Who was he to take a life? Only the grateful had the heart to pull, and fire.

Eyes plunged backwards, body lurched forward. Crumpled to their knees. Fell to the trenches, writhing in the dirt, men howled in fits of pain.

Let the deceased roam the realms they no longer wanted to exist.

Waves trickled onto our clothes, soaking us from the inside out. The storm rose above our mortal toil; Mother Nature has no patience. Salty sea air tempted our nostrils of home and valour, but it did little to front the horrors on the beach. Gunfire ablaze, our Kraken approached the beachhead. This is true war. Fear, anger, pride, camaraderie, pain: a will to survive. Lead continued to find its way towards my men, but I convinced myself they could never hit me. Hot, piercing metal seared its way through the earth, which may as well have stood still, striking our position with brute inaccuracy. Inside the sudden silence, my superior barked those damn dreaded words.

I was told there was artillery inbound. No reinforcements. 30 seconds was all we had.

Mortar seemingly erupted from the crust, taking my men with it into the air. 3 of my men were taken in the first blast. They had aimed that one for my squad. These weren’t the first men to die with me, and certainly won’t be the last. More explosives inbound, and no clear way to escape. It didn’t look hopeless, just fatal. Another 2 fell down, injured, which is another pair of notches on my watch. The squad was starting to break down into fragments, and no longer sure who made it out, we tried to hide, run and fight.

Us, a ragtag group of soldiers, versus an entire German platoon. It was at this point we had all agreed to never be captured alive. We held our position over the lagoon, keeping our ground with joyful valence in the darkest hour. I took a step backwards, and promptly fell into the water. My men must have assumed I’d been hit, I didn’t see them again.

It seemed like I was floating gracefully for an eternity, and in my frenzy, I reasoned that I was hated by those I loved, and regrets filled my soul. It wasn’t death that did this; it was

war. I also reasoned that these would be my final emotions, my final tribute, to this earth, and I should cherish them. How would I know when I died? It faded to black long before I fell to my watery grave.

In my absence of consciousness, I was rescued by a British company steamrolling through the coastline, picking up survivors and POW’s alike. It appeared I was alive, and the luckiest one in the squad, according to those Brits. They would never be able to comprehend what I saw, and what I lost.

“It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who
are willing to endure pain with patience.”

- Julius Caesar

(Any and all constructive criticism greatly recommended)

title: [HF] Epitome of War

question: What does the story say about which World War the narrator was in?

question: What does the story say about the narrator?

answer: The narrator is a sergeant in the army. He has a spouse, a caring family, medals to his name, and a desire to live. The sergeant had men under his command for three years before Operation Neptune sent them to a beachhead to fight the Germans. He made it out to the lagoon but fell into the water and lost consciousness. The sergeant was rescued by a British company steamrolling through the coastline picking up survivors and POWs.

question: How does the story reflect its theme?

answer: The theme is historical fiction (HF) and the story reflects it by depicting what is going through the mind of an officer and soldier in the army before a siege against an enemy with a superior strategic advantage. It is safe to assume that the story is set in World War II because of the steel water transport (Kraken) the narrator was in, who the enemy is (Germany), and the type of weapons used (mortars). The beachhead fighting scene is reminiscent of the Allied Normandy landings during the Battle of Normandy during WWII (external information).

question: What does the story say about the sergeant's squad?

answer: The squad has been with the sergeant for three years prior to Operation Neptune. Five squad members immediately died during the initial assault on the beachhead due to artillery fire while the rest scattered into fragments. Most of the squad joined a ragtag group of soldiers holding positions over a lagoon, facing an entire German platoon. When the sergeant fell into the water, the squad assumed their commanding officer had been hit and continued fighting. It appears that everyone in the squad died because the sergeant was said to be the luckiest one in the squad for having lived through it.


text:
The world's largest food corporations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars (some of it illegally) to avoid being required to label the genetically engineered (GMOs) ingredients in their products.

But with the July 1 deadline for complying with Vermont's GMO labeling law on the horizon, a handful of the largest multinational food corporations have announced they will now label GMOs—not solely because they will be forced to, but because as General Mills claims, they believe “you should know what's in your food and how we make ours."

[]

Have consumers won the GMO labeling battle? Have these food companies that so fiercely fought to keep labels off their products really split with the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), the multi-billion-dollar lobbying group that is still trying to overturn Vermont's law in the courts, and preempt it in Congress?

To be sure, consumer pressure has had an impact on brands' decisions to label. We should celebrate that. But before we break out the champagne, it's worth noting that not all of the food companies that announced plans to label have taken a strong position on labeling. Equally important, four out of the five companies announced plans to label after a Senate bill to preempt Vermont's labeling law failed, but before the Senate has a chance to come back with an amended version of the bill after Congress returns on April 4 from Easter recess.

Is there something more to these recent announcements than just the need to comply with Vermont's law? As in, a strategy to lull consumers into complacency, while at the same time forcing Congress to give food companies what they've wanted all along—a free pass on labeling?

It's also worth noting that all of the companies that have revealed plans to label adamantly defend the “safety" of GMOs—without once mentioning the fact that the vast majority of GMO crops, from which GMO food ingredients are derived, are sprayed with glyphosate, classified last year by the World Health Organization as “a probable human carcinogen." Clearly, we have a long way to go before food corporations acknowledge the devastating consequences of the GMO monoculture model on the environment, human health and global warming.

WHO'S LABELING, AND WHY?

Campbell's Soup Co. CPB (NYSE), General Mills (NYSE:GIS), Mars and Kellogg's (NYSE: K) and ConAgra Foods(NYSE CAG) have all declared they will label GMOs in time to comply with Vermont's July 1 deadline, and in accordance with the Vermont law's standards. The companies say that any costs associated with labeling won't be passed on to consumers—a claim that deflates one of the industry's long-standing, albeit routinely debunked, arguments that GMO labeling will lead to higher food prices for consumers.

  Cereal Giant @GeneralMills to Start Labeling #GMOs Nationwide as VT Law Looms https://t.co/Upsiux5voP @justlabelit https://t.co/uJbzUN7O6V

  — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1458392705.0

Campbell's was first out of the gate, and the first to break with the GMA on the lobbying group's non-negotiable stance against mandatory labeling. After spending a half a million dollars to help defeat California's Proposition 37 ballot initiative that would have mandated labels, Campbell's now says the company supports a mandatory federal labeling solution. Following Campbell's Jan. 1 announcement, we reached out to clarify what the soup company would do if Vermont's law were preempted at the federal level. A Campbell's spokesperson responded by saying that regardless of what happens in Congress, Campbell's products will be labeled, with the words “partially produced with genetic engineering," in all 50 states. On the surface, that's good news. But let's not forget that a federal labeling bill could forbid companies from printing those, or similar words on a label, in the interest of preventing food producers from "stigmatizing" biotechnology.

Similarly, we reached out to General Mills, Mars and Kellogg's this week asking for clarification on their positions. Kellogg's responded, but wouldn't provide answers to our direct questions, referring us instead to the official statement (which doesn't answer our questions). We haven't yet heard back from ConAgra, but we did receive responses from General Mills and Mars.

When asked if General Mills now supports a mandatory federal labeling solution, Mike Siemienas, manager of brand media relations, told us in an email that the cereal giant is “supportive of a model similar to what is used for organic products." In other words, voluntary, not mandatory. Asked if General Mills would label its GMO products according to Vermont standards even if Congress were to preempt Vermont, Siemienas wrote: “... we would comply with any law that Congress passes." We took that as a no.

But General Mills appears (so far) to be alone in continuing to side with the GMA on opposing mandatory labeling laws. Jonathan Mudd, Mars' global director of media relations, told us by email that Mars, like Campbell's, supports “the establishment of a mandatory national labeling system." Mudd also confirmed that Mars will label its products “consistent with Vermont" regardless of whether or not Vermont is preempted “because we believe in consumer transparency." Mars pitched in $376,000 to defeat California's Proposition 37. But after anti-labeling food corporations became boycott targets following the defeat of Prop 37, Mars sat out similar battles in Washington State (2013) and Oregon (2014).

Campbell's and Mars both cited the “need to avoid a 50-state patchwork" of labeling laws as their reason for supporting a mandatory federal solution, as opposed to supporting states' rights to pass GMO labeling laws. On the surface, the patchwork argument might sound rational—until you consider the fact that there are more than 100 state laws, governing food labeling, including a Vermont maple syrup labeling law, and a Minnesota law governing the labeling of wild rice. None of these laws ever created “chaos" in the marketplace, as U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has warned about Vermont's GMO labeling law. And none were ever opposed with the same relentless determination, much less lavish spending, as GMO labeling laws. Maybe because none of them affected Monsanto's bottom line?

_Read page 1_

TIMING IS EVERYTHING

General Mills, Mars and Kellogg's all revealed their labeling plans after the Senate failed to pass S. 2609, a bill intended to preempt Vermont. It's possible that their announcements signal that these food giants have conceded defeat, especially as they all noted the need to comply with the Vermont July 1 deadline.

That's the optimistic view. But the timing of these announcements, made before the Senate returns to try again to try to pass a preemption bill, could also be part of a calculated strategy to win over more Senators to a compromise bill, one that will delay or outright preempt enactment of Vermont's Act 120.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), sponsor of the Monsanto- and GMA-funded S. 2609 (dubbed by opponents as the DARK Act—Deny Americans the Right to Know Act) is unwavering in his rejection of any legislation that requires labels on GMO ingredients. Though he is adamant about a “federal solution," Roberts outright, and illogically, rejects the idea of a uniform mandatory __ federal solution.

Roberts' rigid position on mandatory vs. voluntary cost him the support of Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee and a key player in the GMO labeling drama. Stabenow says she would support a mandatory federal labeling law, though whether that support would include on-package labels, or some sort of QR barcode scheme or toll-free phone numbers, both of which have been floated as alternatives to on-package labels, remains unclear.

Still, Stabenow and other Senators representing Big Ag states are under tremendous pressure (by corporations, not voters) to keep Vermont's law from taking effect. The Big Food corporations know this. So is it possible that companies, by announcing, in quick succession that they will label voluntarily, hope to send the message that there's no need to pass a mandatory labeling law, because they've already volunteered? And could those big companies, or at least some of them, pull the plug on their labeling plans if federal legislation preempts Vermont? (Again, Campbell's and Mars have said they will proceed regardless of what happens in Congress—we know that's not the case for General Mills; Kellogg's and ConAgra haven't confirmed one way or the other).

  Cereal Giant @GeneralMills to Start Labeling #GMOs Nationwide as VT Law Looms https://t.co/Upsiux5voP @justlabelit https://t.co/uJbzUN7O6V

  — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1458392705.0

That's one possibility. Here's another. General Mills told Politco's Jenny Hopkinson that while the company won't pass on the cost of labeling to consumers, the Minnesota-based cereal giant will have to spend “millions of dollars" to comply with Vermont's law. Could this “woe is me" message win enough sympathy votes from Senators who may still be on the fence (and who are being hounded by their corporate donors), that they'll be persuaded to betray consumers in order to stave off what General Mills or other companies allege is a “huge" financial burden?

It's also possible that this is just a public relations ploy by corporations that are banking on the fact that a federal law will pass before they have to label, and that that law will include restrictions that prohibit them from printing “produced with genetic engineering," or similar wording, on their packages. That scenario would allow them to say, gee, we tried to give consumers what they want, but Congress wouldn't allow it.

Whatever the new-and-improved version of the Senate bill morphs into, assuming the Senate passes a bill, it will have to go back to the U.S. House. There, members of a Republican-controlled Joint Standing Conference Committee will try to “reconcile" the Senate bill with the House version, H.R. 1599, which passed the House in July by a vote of 275 – 150. Guaranteed, the House won't sign off on anything with the words “mandatory" or “on-package." In fact, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-Texas), according to Politico, “declared just this week that he won't support on-package labeling, which he has said stigmatizes the technology." Whatever ends up coming out of the committee will have to go back to the House and Senate for a full vote.

That leaves consumers no choice but to continue to hammer our Senators with this message: No compromise. Let Vermont's law take effect. And if you really can't tolerate supporting states' rights to pass labeling laws, then pass a federal labeling law that meets, or preferably exceeds, the standards set by Vermont's law.

_Katherine Paul is associate director of the Organic Consumers Association._ _Ronnie Cummins is international director of the Organic Consumers Association._

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Is Bill Gates Right About GMOs?

Cereal Giant General Mills to Start Labeling GMOs Nationwide as Vermont Law Looms

Huge Victory: Senate Rejects the DARK Act

Big Food Found Guilty in Multimillion Dollar Cover Up in GMO Labeling Fight

question: What does the article say about arguments against GMO labeling laws?

answer: There was a fear that the cost of labeling would be passed on to consumers and lead to higher food prices. Campbell's and Mars both cite a need to avoid a 50-state patchwork of labeling laws, which is why they are against states' rights to pass labeling laws. There is a belief that these laws would create "chaos" in the marketplace.

question: What does the article say about the health benefits of GMOs?


text:
Air left her nostrils it short, sad bursts. Water poured from her eyes like a river, streaking back and forth across her cheeks. I wanted to wipe them away, yet my hand remained frozen to my side. My own eyes began to cloud as I blinked them back inside. Remaining strong was my only option at this point, there was no turning back.

Her fingers gripped her hair like she was ripping a flower from its roots, knuckles whitened from the grasp. Mouth agape, she attempted at words, but none came to her. Her sighs came heavy and quickened as her closed eyes spewed tears. Lips quivered as she muttered a single syllable, "Why..."

I didn't quite know at the time. At this point, I don't know if I ever will. One of the last words I heard from her was a word of despair, a word I couldn't even fathom a response to.

My gaze was locked upon her, she was beautiful, even in this moment of despair. It's you, it's me, it didn't matter who, or what, or why, or how. No one knew the answer to any of these questions, least of all me. I swallowed the knot in my throat one more time and looked up at the door behind her. Scratches at the bottom from where her dog had begged for freedom, paint scraped from the egg shell white wood left a softer yellow look.

Time slowed as I got up and made my way across the room. Her sighs became screams, and from despair grew anger. I heard the screech of the chair as she turned to me, "What the fuck is wrong with me!" Her shouting sent shivers down my spine, but not from fear. Regret wouldn't describe it either, because I don't regret it, it was a shiver of understanding the feeling of not knowing where you belong in this world.

I didn't answer, there was no answer.

I left.

title: (RF) Finding me

question: Why is the female character in the story upset?

answer: She does not know why she is here.

question: Where is the female character?

answer: [In an insane asylum].

question: Why does the main character not answer her question?

answer: There is no answer.

question: What does the main character do at the end of the story?

answer: Leave.

question: Write a ~2 sentence summary.

answer: This story is about a woman who is in an asylum and the emotional turmoil she faces from not knowing why she is the way she is. The main character bears witness and then leaves.


text:
Should FDI in India’s thinktank sector worry us? It is a debate long overdue

In 1976, at the height of the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi, India’s Parliament enacted a piece of legislation called the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. It prohibited political parties and ‘organisations of a political nature’, civil servants and judges, as also correspondents, columnists and editors/owners of registered newspapers and news broadcasting organisations— and even cartoonists—from receiving foreign contributions.

The very fact that the Act makes a specific reference to cartoonists should be hint enough of the establishment’s paranoia vis-à-vis the ‘invisible hand’ of foreign powers back then. During a Rajya Sabha debate on the proposed bill on 9 March 1976, the term ‘CIA’ (Central Intelligence Agency) was mentioned at least 30 times by different legislators, while ‘Lockheed Martin’ (a military aerospace corporation) came up at least six times in the context of alleged instances of Americans pumping dollars into governments worldwide to buy influence during the Cold War.

The sentiment of the times was captured by the following statement made during that debate by Khurshid Alam Khan, father of India’s present Minister for External Affairs: “The CIA’s doings all over the world have very clearly indicated as to what could be done by foreign money and foreign interference.”

In 2010, a different parliament, with opposition members who had not been imprisoned like those in 1976, unanimously voted to update the law by passing the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). In fact, the Parliamentary Standing Committee that examined the bill was headed by the BJP’s Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj, and it had no major objections.

This time round, there was no talk of the CIA or Lockheed Martin. Instead, concern was focused on the increasingly influential role of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as institutions of civil society in India. The term ‘NGO’ found at least 40 mentions during the Rajya Sabha debate on the 2010 bill. The main concern of the Upper House appeared to be a lack of transparency among NGOs receiving foreign contributions. Hence the calls to strengthen the monitoring regime, although several MPs expressed worry that the new law would give the Centre too much discretionary power to crack down on dissenting NGOs.

[]

Worries about the 2010 Act’s overreach were validated last year when the Government used it to clamp down on NGOs involved in anti-corruption and anti-nuclear protests. As part of that exercise, at least four NGOs were booked under the FCRA for allegedly diverting foreign funds to aid the organisation of protests against the Koodankulam nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu. Their bank accounts were frozen. The protests, however, did not end.

Perhaps the most ironic use of the FCRA was when the Ministry of Home Affairs reportedly held back potential funding from the US-based Ford Foundation for the Mumbai-based Institute for Policy Research Studies (IPRS), a thinktank that runs Parliamentary Research Service (PRS).

Incubated at the Centre for Policy Research (CPR), a Delhi-based thinktank, PRS was spun off and institutionalised as IPRS in 2010 as a Section 25 non-profit company with a registered office in Mumbai. The main aim of PRS was to provide non-partisan legislative research services to parliamentarians, most of whom are starved of resources to conduct independent research required to hold the Executive accountable in Parliament. The service’s popularity among MPs was obvious from the fact that several of them reportedly made individual representations to the Home Ministry against blocking foreign funds for its parent institute.

The tragedy of why Parliament does not have a public-funded service like PRS is a debate for another day, but choking the IPRS of foreign funds raises a question of hypocrisy since the Central Government routinely collaborates with a wide range of civil society thinktanks that receive funds from the West.

Let’s start with the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER). According to its filings with the MHA, accessible on the FCRA website (_https://mha.nic.in/fcra.htm_), ICRIER has received over Rs 11.5 crore in foreign donations from a range of international institutions such as the Asian Development Bank, World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Sasakawa Peace Foundation between 2007 and 2012. This council, currently headed by Dr Isher Judge Ahluwalia, wife of Planning Commission Vice-chairperson Dr Montek Singh Ahluwalia, appears to have a cosy relationship with the present establishment. When the Government was in a fix over the contentious General Anti- Avoidance Rules (GAAR) of taxation, for example, it delegated the task of ironing out its problems to a four-member committee headed by Dr Parthasarathi Shome, a well-known economic policy expert at ICRIER. There are several other projects on which the Council’s faculty collaborates closely with the Government of India.

That thinktanks are well networked goes without saying. In fact, ICRIER and PRS were involved in quite a controversy during last year’s Parliament vote on Foreign Direct Investment in India’s multi-brand retail sector. As reported by _India Today_, (‘Foreign Direct Instruction for our MPs?’ 6 December 2012), IPRS had organised a ‘close-door’ meeting at Delhi’s Constitution Club the day before the vote, where MPs were briefed on the benefits of FDI by Professor Arpita Mukherjee of ICRIER. Some MPs had publicly labelled this a ‘lobbying’ effort.

Another example of close collaboration between the Centre and a thinktank that gets significant foreign funding is the one between the Government and the CPR, headed by Dr Pratap Bhanu Mehta. Between 2007 and 2012, according to its filings with the MHA, this thinktank received foreign funds of over Rs 40.8 crore from a range of donors such as the Ford Foundation, Google Foundation, International Development Research Centre, Economic and Social Research Council, Hewlett Foundation and IKEA Social Initiative.

Environmental policy is another area in which foreign-funded thinktanks have a significant impact. The Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), headed by Sunita Narain with a governing board that has Ela Bhatt, BG Verghese, Dr MS Swaminathan and Dr NC Saxena among others, has received over Rs 67.7 crore in foreign funds between 2006 and 2012. The CSE’s main donors, according to FCRA records, include the Denmark- based Dan Church Aid, Germany-based Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst EV, Heinrich Boll Foundation and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. Other donors include the Commission of European Communities and Government of India.

Going by the media coverage that CSE receives, it is safe to say that this thinktank has a profound influence on India’s environmental policy. An indication of its ties with the Government is the fact that the two had their own ‘side-event’ at the recently concluded Doha talks on climate change.

The other green thinktank with generous foreign contributions that works closely with the Government is The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). Consider this: the International Bioenergy Summit of 2012 held in New Delhi was organised by TERI and sponsored by the Department of Biotechnology (DBT). According to its FCRA filings, TERI, with a staff of over 900, has received about Rs 155.9 crore between 2006 and 2012 from a vast variety of donors.

In the field of health policy, one of the most influential thinktanks is the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI). Since it was founded in 2006, it has received a total of Rs 219 crore in funds, its biggest foreign donor being the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and biggest Indian donor being the Government of India. Other foreign donors, according to FCRA filings, include the National Institutes of Health (of the US government), Welcome Trust, International Development Research Centre and MacArthur Foundation.

A public-private initiative, the PHFI is expected to shape India’s approach to public health policy over the next decade. An example of its influence on India’s health policy is the fact that its secretariat has been thanked and praised in a report of the High Level Expert Group constituted by the Planning Commission to frame a new policy on ‘universal health coverage’ for all Indians.

On matters of internet policy, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based thinktank focused on internet governance and intellectual property issues, has been a member of some key government committees, like the one under Justice AP Shah to study privacy laws in India. The CIS also receives foreign funding. According to its website, it has received over Rs 8.3 crore in funds, a significant portion of it from foreign donors like the UK-based Kusuma Trust, which was founded by Anurag Dikshit, an Indian businessman who made a fortune selling his stake in a popular online gambling website. He eventually donated most of his wealth to the Kusuma Trust, which funds various charities across the world.

In the human rights space, there is the famous Lawyers Collective, which, apart from its human rights advocacy, also provides legal aid to members of disadvantaged communities. Although this collective does not appear to work all that closely with the Government, it is interesting to note that it was founded by Indira Jaising, who is currently one of the Centre’s Additional Solicitor Generals. Since 2006, according to its FCRA filings, the organisation has received around Rs 21.8 crore in foreign funds from the Ford, Levi Strauss and Open Society foundations and from the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, among others.

Another thinktank that deserves a mention is the Centre for Civil Society (CCS), which was founded by Dr Parth J Shah and has a ‘Board of Scholars’ with Isher Judge Ahluwalia, Jagdish Bhagwati, Lord Meghnad Desai and Swaminathan Anklesaria Aiyar, among others, as members. While it is not clear from its website whether it works closely with the Government, it was ranked 51st in a recent global survey of thinktanks by University of Pennsylvania. According to a CCS press release, these rankings were ‘based on not just our research and analysis, but also on our engagement with policy makers and ability to influence policy decisions’. The CCS’s rank was quite a surprise, given its modest resources. According to its FCRA filings, between 2006 and 2011, it received about Rs 6.2 crore from foreign donors such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, John Templeton Foundation and International Policy Network. As per its audited accounts, available on its website, donations from Indian donors were equally modest.

The above examples demonstrate the influence of foreign funded thinktanks on almost every major aspect of Indian policy today, be it economic or environmental, related to public health or internet governance.

Is this good or bad for India as a country? Given that most sectors of the economy are now open to foreign investment, does it make sense to regulate and restrict foreign funds for such thinktanks under laws like the FCRA?

The answer depends on what Indian society expects of them. Do we expect them to be completely independent of donors in their views? Would an organisation like the CSE still get foreign funds from European donors if it were to readily welcome genetically modified (GM) food in India? In such circumstances, how independent should we expect these thinktanks to be in the arena of policy?

Absolute objectivity—or at a least public perception of it—is an absolute myth. No matter who funds a thinktank, be it foreigners or Indians, it is impossible to be seen as such. The more pressing issue is of transparency. Are Indian policymakers aware of the details of foreign funds received by these thinktanks?

Take, for example, a recent Parliamentary Standing Committee report that expressed serious reservations about GM food. The Committee repeatedly quotes with approval the deposition of Dr Vandana Shiva against GM food. A little-known fact about Dr Shiva is that her organisation, Navdanya, according to its FCRA filings, has received a total of Rs 16.7 crore between 2006 and 2012 in foreign donations from mainly European organisations (some of which also contribute to the CSE) like Bread for the World, Diakonie Emergency Aid, Hivos Foundation, Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst EV, RSF Innovations in Social Finance, and even from the European Union itself.

Would a Parliamentary Standing Committee headed by an MP of the CPM, a party that is always suspicious of the ‘foreign hand’, show the same deference to Dr Shiva’s views if its members knew of Navdanya’s European donors, several of which are also Christian churches?

In an op-ed article in The Indian Express (‘Do not disagree’, 29 February 2012), Dr Pratap Bhanu Mehta while criticising the FCRA, states, ‘Of course, NGOs should be transparent and accountable in terms of their sources of funding.’ Yet, the CPR, of which Dr Mehta is president, only discloses the names of its donors in its annual report, and that too without revealing the amounts received from each. Similarly, Navdanya offers no information on either of its websites, Indian and Italian (navdanyainternational.it), on any of its funding. Other thinktanks like the PHFI and CIS offer a more detailed breakup of their different sources of funding, while some like the CSE and CCS provide only a roll of donor names and a figure of cumulative funding with no breakup of individual contributions. So, while these thinktanks are forced to disclose their foreign funding sources to the MHA under the FCRA, why do they not volunteer exhaustive information on their own websites?

An amusing facet of this is that the Central Government and Corporate India are more transparent (even if forced to be) than these civil society institutions, thanks to the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the extensive disclosure requirements under the Companies Act, 1956. Of companies in particular, information is accessible over the internet on the MCA21 website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. This contrast is amusing because some of these thinktanks never tire of demanding transparency of the State and corporate sector.

For several thinktanks, it is often hard to figure out something as basic as the nature of the legal entity through which they conduct their activities. Are they societies, associations or trusts? More pertinently, why is the Government not pushing for a stricter transparency regime? A major stumbling block may be the fact that these thinktanks are set up under state laws and it is difficult for the Central Government to coordinate a nationwide transparency regime. However, given that most are beneficiaries of income tax exemptions, it may be possible for the Centre to use the Income Tax Act to demand comprehensive disclosures. Since they enjoy tax benefits, they might also qualify as ‘public authorities’ under the Right To Information Act, 2005.

Another reason that disclosure of funding is important is to inform the analysis of people who usually see NGOs as selfless entities dedicated to nothing but a higher cause. While this may be true of some NGOs, many leaders of these set-ups have personal stakes in ensuring certain outcomes. After all, future donor grants often depend on sustaining one’s influence in the policy space. Many of the institutions described in this article have been regular recipients of funds from the same sources year after year.

Another question is the volume of funds coming in and where it will leave India’s public institutions that were originally meant to aid policymaking with unbiased intellectual inputs. How are cash-strapped Indian universities to compete with these well-funded thinktanks? Government-run institutions of higher learning are supposed to have an inbuilt guarantee of academic independence, but would their scholarly voices be drowned out by those backed by bigger resources?

Also, given the frequency with which a few foreign funders appear on donor lists, is it time to worry about their influence on Indian policies? After all, generous funding lets the faculty of these thinktanks jetset around the world to attend conferences, organise seminars in India and network with officials at a level that most public universities cannot afford. How does this impact our civil society discourse? Should Parliament limit the amount that a single foreign entity can donate, or are we better off sticking to a regulatory regime that only insists on a set of disclosure norms?

On a concluding note, let us not forget that a large part of the credit for the RTI Act of 2005—the country’s most empowering piece of legislation since the Constitution of 1950—goes to the advocacy efforts of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), a farmers group in Rajasthan that does not accept institutional funding from either India or overseas. Bank interest on its corpus and donations by individuals are the MKSS’s only sources of funding. Together, the two gave it Rs 30 lakh for the financial year 2010-11, details of which are available on its website.

About The Author

[]

question: What is the central hypocrisy of the government clamping down on foreign funding to Think Tanks?

answer: The BJP influenced bill in Indian parliament, which originally was meant to guard against the United States' intelligence community. Now it guards against "Think Tanks" — and yet the government is more than happy to take money from foreign governments while repressing NGOs. Thus they have appropriated an old law from a different context, and used it to suppress organizations which are necessary.


text:
PICKETT COUNTY is a county located in the U.S. state of Tennessee. As of the 2010 census, the population was 5,077,[1] making it the least populous county in Tennessee. Its county seat is Byrdstown.[2]

The city of Byrdstown and the Kentucky town of Albany, to the northeast, are positioned between two Army Corps of Engineers lakes: Dale Hollow Lake, mainly in Tennessee, and Lake Cumberland, in Kentucky. The area is known as “Twin Lakes” and Byrdstown is noted as “The Gateway To Dale Hollow Lake”. Every year thousands of people vacation at the many resorts situated along the lakes.

History

Pickett County was created in 1879 from sections of Overton and Fentress counties. It was named for Howell Lester Pickett (1847 - 1914), a member of the state legislature representing Wilson County who had been instrumental in the county's formation.[3] Nobel Peace Prize winner Cordell Hull had been born in one of the parcels of land set aside to create the new county. Hull would be honored for his role in organizing the World War II diplomatic alliance that became the United Nations.

Geography

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of , of which is land and (6.6%) is water.[4] It is the fourth-smallest county in Tennessee by land area and third-smallest by total area. The eastern part of the county, much of which is part of Pickett State Forest, lies atop the Cumberland Plateau, while the western, more populated half is located on the Highland Rim. The Wolf River and the Obey River, the lower parts of which are part of Dale Hollow Lake, pass through the county. The rivers converge just west of the county's border with Clay County.

[Twilight over Dale Hollow Lake, near Byrdstown] [Hazard Cave at Pickett State Park]

Streams in the far eastern section of the county are part of the watershed of the Big South Fork of the Cumberland River.

Adjacent counties

-   Wayne County, Kentucky (northeast/EST Border)
-   Scott County (east/EST Border)
-   Fentress County (southeast)
-   Overton County (southwest)
-   Clay County (west)
-   Clinton County, Kentucky (north)

National protected area

-   Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (very small part)

State protected areas

-   Cordell Hull Birthplace State Park
-   Honey Creek State Natural Area
-   Pickett State Forest (part)
-   Pickett CCC Memorial State Park
-   Twin Arches State Natural Area (part)

Highways

-   -   -   -   -

Demographics

As of the census[5] of 2000, there were 4,945 people, 2,091 households, and 1,461 families residing in the county. The population density was 30 people per square mile (12/km²). There were 2,956 housing units at an average density of 18 per square mile (7/km²). The racial makeup of the county was 99.15% White, 0.10% Black or African American, 0.16% Native American, 0.04% Asian, 0.10% from other races, and 0.44% from two or more races. 0.83% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.

There were 2,091 households, out of which 27.40% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 58.30% were married couples living together, 7.80% had a female householder with no husband present, and 30.10% were non-families. 27.20% of all households were made up of individuals, and 12.90% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.33 and the average family size was 2.83.

In the county, the population was spread out, with 21.40% under the age of 18, 8.60% from 18 to 24, 24.70% from 25 to 44, 27.70% from 45 to 64, and 17.80% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 42 years. For every 100 females there were 96.80 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 94.20 males.

The median income for a household in the county was $24,673, and the median income for a family was $31,355. Males had a median income of $22,367 versus $17,173 for females. The per capita income for the county was $14,681. About 12.00% of families and 15.60% of the population were below the poverty line, including 19.40% of those under age 18 and 20.00% of those age 65 or over.

Education

-   Pickett County High School - High school
-   Pickett County K-8 - Elementary school/Junior high school

Communities

[Main Street in Byrdstown] [Static, at the Tennessee-Kentucky state line]

Town

-   Byrdstown (county seat)

Unincorporated communities

-   Cedar Grove
-   Love Lady
-   Midway
-   Moodyville
-   Static

Ghost town

-   Olympus

Politics

Along with Macon County, Tennessee, Pickett County constitutes an outlier in Tennessee politics as it is a historically Republican county in a region (Middle Tennessee) that was overwhelmingly Democratic up until recent years. Since its founding, Republicans have carried the county in every presidential election, with the only exceptions being Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932, and Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton in the split 1912 and 1992 elections, respectively.

  Year                               Republican                                  Democratic                                  Third Parties
  ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
  style=“text-align:center;” |2016   style=“text-align:center;” |77.3% _2,021_   style=“text-align:center;” |20.5% _536_     2.2% _58_
  style=“text-align:center;” |2012   style=“text-align:center;” |69.8% _1,712_   style=“text-align:center;” |29.0% _712_     1.2% _29_
  style=“text-align:center;” |2008   style=“text-align:center;” |66.9% _1,786_   style=“text-align:center;” |32.0% _854_     1.2% _31_
  style=“text-align:center;” |2004   style=“text-align:center;” |60.5% _1,600_   style=“text-align:center;” |39.1% _1,033_   0.5% _12_
  style=“text-align:center;” |2000   style=“text-align:center;” |57.2% _1,281_   style=“text-align:center;” |41.9% _939_     0.9% _19_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1996   style=“text-align:center;” |50.5% _1,046_   style=“text-align:center;” |43.5% _901_     6.0% _124_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1992   style=“text-align:center;” |46.2% _1,094_   style=“text-align:center;” |48.3% _1,144_   5.5% _130_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1988   style=“text-align:center;” |63.7% _1,118_   style=“text-align:center;” |36.1% _634_     0.2% _4_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1984   style=“text-align:center;” |63.7% _1,246_   style=“text-align:center;” |36.1% _706_     0.3% _5_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1980   style=“text-align:center;” |62.8% _1,319_   style=“text-align:center;” |36.1% _758_     1.2% _25_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1976   style=“text-align:center;” |50.7% _986_     style=“text-align:center;” |48.8% _948_     0.5% _10_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1972   style=“text-align:center;” |72.2% _957_     style=“text-align:center;” |26.9% _357_     0.8% _11_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1968   style=“text-align:center;” |59.4% _884_     style=“text-align:center;” |27.2% _405_     13.4% _199_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1964   style=“text-align:center;” |56.2% _935_     style=“text-align:center;” |43.8% _728_     style="text-align:center;|
  style=“text-align:center;” |1960   style=“text-align:center;” |67.1% _1,154_   style=“text-align:center;” |33.0% _567_     style="text-align:center;|
  style=“text-align:center;” |1956   style=“text-align:center;” |63.3% _985_     style=“text-align:center;” |36.0% _560_     0.7% _11_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1952   style=“text-align:center;” |64.7% _1,003_   style=“text-align:center;” |35.3% _547_     style="text-align:center;|
  style=“text-align:center;” |1948   style=“text-align:center;” |59.1% _849_     style=“text-align:center;” |39.4% _566_     1.5% _22_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1944   style=“text-align:center;” |63.5% _761_     style=“text-align:center;” |34.7% _416_     1.8% _21_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1940   style=“text-align:center;” |55.6% _830_     style=“text-align:center;” |43.7% _652_     0.7% _10_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1936   style=“text-align:center;” |58.1% _651_     style=“text-align:center;” |40.5% _454_     1.3% _15_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1932   style=“text-align:center;” |48.1% _681_     style=“text-align:center;” |50.3% _712_     1.6% _23_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1928   style=“text-align:center;” |65.7% _745_     style=“text-align:center;” |33.7% _382_     0.6% _7_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1924   style=“text-align:center;” |51.1% _676_     style=“text-align:center;” |48.6% _643_     0.4% _5_
  style=“text-align:center;” |1920   style=“text-align:center;” |59.6% _896_     style=“text-align:center;” |40.4% _607_     style="text-align:center;|
  style=“text-align:center;” |1916   style=“text-align:center;” |54.5% _501_     style=“text-align:center;” |45.5% _418_     style="text-align:center;|
  style=“text-align:center;” |1912   style=“text-align:center;” |39.4% _355_     style=“text-align:center;” |45.7% _411_     14.9% _134_

  : PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS RESULTS[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

title: Pickett County, Tennessee

question: Summarize the geography of the county.

answer: Pickett County is the fourth-smallest county in Tennessee by land. The eastern part of the county lies atop the Cumberland Plateau while the western part is located on the Highland Rim. The Wolf River and the Obey River pass through the county.

question: List a few of the educational institutions present in the county.

answer: The county has two schools - Pickett County High School and the Pickett County K-8 which is an Elementary school.

question: Summarize the political situation of the county.

answer: The county is historically a Republican county in a region that was Democratic up until recent years.


text:
[paris exercise ban]

France’s capital has banned daytime outdoor exercise while the rest of the country can continue (Picture: AFP)
All outdoor exercise between 10am and 7pm is now banned in the French capital after officials lost their patience with people ignoring social distancing rules.

Parisians were seen walking and jogging in groups in the city’s parks over the sunny weekend despite the threat of on-the-spot fines upwards of €135 (£120) for violating lockdown rules.

France has been under one of Europe’s strictest lockdowns for nearly a month, requiring everyone to have a printed form stating their reason for being outside every time they leave the home.

The rest of the country is still allowed out to exercise within half a mile of their address, shop for essentials, or see a doctor.

[French judoka (-66 kg category) Kilian Le Blouch (L) and his girlfriend French judoka Sarah Harachi train in the living room of their apartment on April 3, 2020, in Chatenay-Malabry, near Paris, on the 18th day of a lockdown in France aimed at curbing the spread of the COVID-19 (novel coronavirus). (Photo by FRANCK FIFE / AFP) (Photo by FRANCK FIFE/AFP via Getty Images)]

A couple, both Olympic judo wrestlers, shared their home workouts in Paris (Picture: AFP)
The mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, said the new rules would make people exercise ‘when the streets are generally at their quietest’.

France’s death toll has passed 10,000, the fourth-highest officially-reported figure after Italy, Spain and the US.

FOR ALL THE LATEST NEWS AND UPDATES ON CORONAVIRUS, CLICK HERE.

FOR OUR CORONAVIRUS LIVE BLOG CLICK HERE.

The government’s health minister, Olivier Véran, said on Tuesday that the country is still in a ‘worsening phase of the epidemic’.

Spain, the second-worst hit country in Europe after Italy, has had an outright ban on outdoor exercise since its lockdown was introduced.

[A woman excercises on a bench on Pont des Arts in central Paris, early on April 8, 2020, as a new regulation is put into place asking people to practice their sports before 10:00 and after 19:00, on the 23thrd day of a lockdown in France aimed at curbing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the novel coronavirus. - The city of Paris decided to regulate the hours of outdoors sports following a sunny and warm weekend that saw many citizens flouting the social distancing requirements put into place to curb the spread of the COVID-19. (Photo by Alain JOCARD / AFP) (Photo by ALAIN JOCARD/AFP via Getty Images)]

The daytime ban is intended to spread people’s outdoor time more evenly throughout the day (Picture:AFP)
An exception was granted for people walking their dogs, which led to a black market of pet-owners renting their animals out to others so they could go outside.

Parisians might now take inspiration from some of the viral social media clips showing the creative ways Spaniards have tried to maintain their fitness – such as gym classes delivered by an instructor on his roof to rows of people on balconies across the street.

Many countries in Europe are now plotting a course to end their lockdowns, and some have started easing restrictions.

People in the Czech Republic have had to wear facemasks outside at all times by law, but can from today leave home without one.

Some sports facilities such as tennis courts are now allowed to reopen as long as no more than two people play in a group, and shops selling certain non-essential goods will open from Thursday.

[Fitness instructor runs class from the middle of housing complex in Spain https://www.instagram.com/ursullinetv/ Picture: ursullinetv]

A fitness instructor in Spain ran classes from a rooftop (Picture: @sanosevillabermejales)
Denmark and Austria, which were two of the first European countries to go into lockdown, will start a slow exit from next week.

Denmark will reopen nurseries and primary schools from April 15, while Austria will allow small shops, DIY stores and garden centres to open from April 14.

The German government has drawn up an action plan to phase in a step-by-step return to normality, including mandatory mask-wearing in public, limits on gatherings and the rapid tracing of infection chains, according to Reuters.

However, the plan assumes the pandemic will last through to 2021.

Disease experts in a number of countries have warned that, until a vaccine is developed, there may be no way to end the lockdown without the virus spreading again.

GET IN TOUCH WITH OUR NEWS TEAM BY EMAILING US AT WEBNEWS@METRO.CO.UK.

FOR MORE STORIES LIKE THIS, CHECK OUR NEWS PAGE.

Get your need-to-know latest news, feel-good stories, analysis and more

question: What does the article say about the motivation behind the exercise ban?

answer: Officials lost their patience due to people ignoring social distancing rules. People were seen walking and jogging in groups in the city's park despite the threat of fines for violating lockdown rules. The country of France is (at the time of the article) in a worsening phase of the epidemic.

question: What does the article say about the response to the pandemic in nations besides France?

answer: Spain, the second-worst hit country in Europe after Italy, has had a ban on outdoor exercise since its lockdown began. Many countries in Europe are plotting a course the end their lockdowns. People in Czech Republic can leave home without masks. Denmark plans to reopen nurseries and primary school, while Astria will allow small shops, DIY stores, and garden centres to open. The German government has drawn up a step-by-step plan for a return to normality.

question: What does the article say about the response to the pandemic in North American countries?


text:
The NYPD is prepared to collar Harvey Weinstein for felony sexual assault, a police official with direct knowledge of the case told The Daily Beast.

“We’re ready to go with an arrest,” the official said yesterday afternoon.

The NYPD is awaiting only a nod from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance.

Earlier in the day, Chief of Detectives Robert Boyce was asked during a wide ranging press availability about the investigation into sexual assault allegations against Weinstein. Boyce replied that the detectives are still gathering evidence in the case and, “It is going very, very well.”

Boyce then suggested that questions regarding the next step would be best addressed to Vance.

“I would ask you to ask him,” Boyce said.

The Daily Beast did ask.

“We will decline,” a Vance spokesman said when asked for comment.

According to police sources, the NYPD has been investigating five separate sexual assault allegations against Weinstein. One case is said to be particularly strong.

The NYPD does not name sex crime victims, but the victim in this instance has spoken for publication about the alleged assault.

As she recounted in a 2017 _New Yorker_ article by Ronan Farrow, Lucia Evans was a college student interested in an acting career when she met Weinstein at the Cipriani Upstairs nightspot in the summer of 2004. Weinstein offered her professional guidance and she imagined that was his intention she arrived at his office for a daytime meeting.

As Evans subsequently recounted to Farrow and to detectives from the NYPD’s Special Victims Unit, Weinstein made his real purpose clear when he forced her to perform oral sex.

“I said, over and over, ‘I don’t want to do this, stop, don’t,’” she told Farrow. “He’s a big guy. He overpowered me.”

The SVU has also been speaking to actress Paz de la Huerta, who told _Vanity Fair_ that Weinstein threw her down on a bed and raped her in 2010. Detectives found both women believable. The Evans case is apparently the stronger of the two.

The other three cases involving Weinstein are said to be still developing.

In the case involving Evans, one hurdle the SVU detectives reportedly faced was a reluctance on her part to deal with Vance’s office.

One reason for Evans’ hesitation may have been Vance’s failure to authorize the SVU to arrest Weinstein for groping Ambra Battilana Gutierrez in 2015. Vance’s office declined—and left that victim all the more vulnerable to be smeared by the press—even though Gutierrez had immediately reported the incident and had subsequently recorded Weinstein making what amounted to a confession.

“I won’t do it again,” Weinstein can be heard telling Battilana, implicitly admitting he had done it to her before.

In defending the decision not to prosecute, Chief Assistant DA Karen Friedman Agnifilo actually sought to blame the detectives, saying that before making the recording they should have first consulted with the “seasoned prosecutors” in her office.

“While the recording is horrifying to listen to, what emerged from the audio was insufficient to prove a crime under New York law, which requires prosecutors to establish criminal intent,” Agnifilo said.

Weinstein’s lawyers had reportedly insisted to the prosecutors that he had touched her breasts only to evaluate her as a possible lingerie model. He would have had a harder time explaining why he had reached under her skirt without criminal intent.

“She was going to play the part of a gynecological patient in a movie?” a police official joked.

Another police official noted that the Manhattan DA routinely prosecutes subway gropers on far less evidence.

“But they’re not Harvey Weinstein,” the other official noted.

A Weinstein victim is liable to be all the more leery of going to the Manhattan DA since the mogul retained defense attorney Ben Brafman, whose law partners include Marc Agnifilo. He is the husband of Karen Friedman Agnifilo, who is said to have recused herself from any further involvement in anything Weinstein.

Evans eventually agreed to meet with the DA’s office after the SVU detectives offered to accompany her and remain while she was interviewed. She is said to have been as convincing with the prosecutors and she had been with the detectives.

Evans, who has since married and moved on to interests unrelated to acting, seems to be as determined as the detectives are to follow through in the Weinstein case.

She told _The New Yorker_: “I tried to get away, but maybe I didn’t try hard enough. I didn’t want to kick him or fight him… I just sort of gave up. That’s the most horrible part of it, and that’s why he’s been able to do this for so long to so many women: people give up, and then they feel like it’s their fault.”

She also recalled that Weinstein had seemed unconcerned about any possible consequences after the attack.

“It was like it was just another day for him,” she said. “It was no emotion.”

A decade later, Weinstein seems bound for a day of reckoning. The SVU detectives had a few final details to chase down in recent days, but now they are ready to make the collar in at least one case. They only need Vance to give the go-ahead.

According to several news accounts, Vance’s office has been looking into Weinstein’s finances, as regard to nondisclosure agreements with other accusers as well as in general. A number of people in his office had been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. The DA also hopes to subpoena Weinstein’s driver, though prosecutors were said at one point to be having difficulty locating him.

Meanwhile, the New York State Attorney General’s office has filed a civil suit against Weinstein’s company, charging it with “vicious and exploitative mistreatment” of employees., including “sexual harassment, intimidation, and other misconduct.”

At the same time, the district attorney out in Los Angeles is reportedly examining a total of five cases of sexual assault by Weinstein that the police have referred to it for possible prosecution.

But none of that precludes Vance from just going ahead and authorizing Weinstein's arrest in the Evans case. Weinstein is said to have stayed away from recent negotiations regarding the sale of his business because he feared he might be arrested if he came to New York.

He just might be if the detectives decide just to go ahead and make the collar with or without Vance’s approval.

And the result could be a long prison term.

question: Who is Harvey Weinstein?

answer: Weinstein is male and a person of influence (to what capacity is not stated, but enough for the media to cover a case against him). He has business both in New York and in Los Angeles, it is possible that he also has businesses elsewhere. The NYPD is ready to arrest him for sexual assault.

question: What is the case against Weinstein?

answer: There are five sexual assault allegations against him. One has gone public, a case of a college student who he forced into giving him oral sex after luring her with the promise of professional guidance.

question: Why was Weinstein able to commit such acts?

answer: According to Lucia Evans, the victim that spoke out, she and other women in her position gave up, leading to a feeling that the fault lies with them instead of Weinstein.

question: Is Weinstein the only one with a case?

answer: No, the Weinstein Company is facing a civil suit. The charges are the vicious and exploitative mistreatment of employees. This includes “sexual harassment, intimidation, and other misconduct.”

question: Write a ~3 sentence summary.

answer: Harvey Weinstein is facing criminal charges for sexual assault, and the Weinsten company is facing a civil case for vicious and exploitative mistreatment of employees. The NYPD, the Manhattan District Attorney, and the New York State Attorney General's Office, are preparing to prosecute. According to one of the victims and other previous reports of incidents related to Weinstein, the man has been coercive with his sexual assault victims, making them feel like the incidents are their fault and thus makes them unable to properly fight back against him.