text:
ARTHUR MATTHEWS (1889–?) played for the New Zealand rugby league team in 1919 on their tour of Australia. He was Kiwi number 117.[1] He played in 3 tour matches but did not play in any tests as there were none played on this tour. He lived in Auckland and played for the Ponsonby United and North Shore Albions senior teams from 1915 to 1920.[2]

Playing career

Arthur Matthews began his career playing for Ponsonby United in the Auckland Rugby League competition. He played for them in the 1915 and 1916 seasons. He was an electrician by trade and in 1917 he volunteered for the war effort on March 16. After being physically examined he was declared fit for active duty though he never went away to fight.[3]

He was involved in some controversy early in the 1917 season. He and his brother (W Matthews) turned out for the North Shore Albions without having formalised a transfer. Grafton Athletic protested and the Auckland Rugby League stood down both players and stated that the match should be replayed.[4] It was later reported that it was an oversight as W Matthews had just returned from war service and had played some matches for Ponsonby 3rd grade team years earlier, while the Ponsonby 3rd grade team had withdrawn from the competition due to a lack of playing numbers. As a result, the Ponsonby club had granted both brothers transfers.[5] The transfers were duly processed allowing Arthur Matthews to turn out for North Shore in their second round match against City Rovers.[6]

In 1918 North Shore were forced to withdraw from the senior competition due to a lack of playing numbers. Many sports were struggling at this time because so many of their players had gone away to fight in the First World War. As a result, Matthews transferred back to the Ponsonby club where he played for the remainder of the season. He played for them in their Thacker Shield winning effort where they beat Sydenham in Christchurch 11–0 and scored a try .[7] In 1919 the North Shore team was revived and he returned to them. This was to be the most impressive season of Matthews career.

In May 1919 he played in a trial match to make the New Zealand team. The match was played at Victoria Park and he was listed in the centres.[8] Subsequently, he was selected for the New Zealand team on their 1919 tour of Australia. He was named in the reserves to play for New Zealand[9] in a warm up match against Auckland but did not take the field.[10] Matthews played in 3 of the 11 tour matches, being used in 3 different positions. He debuted for New Zealand against Tamworth on June 11, playing in the centres. New Zealand won the match 21–13.[11] His next match was against Ipswich Firsts on June 26 where he played fullback in an 11–8 win. He kicked a goal and this was to be his only points for New Zealand.[12] His third match was against Rockhampton on July 9. This time he was to play in the halfback position and this was to be the last game he would play for New Zealand.[13] New Zealand would also win this match 23–0.

Unusually Matthews did not represent Auckland until after he had played for New Zealand. Partly this was due to the fact that so few Auckland representative matches were played in previous seasons due to the war. He played for the “Rest of Auckland” team against the touring side on their return. Auckland was to lose 30–45 in front of 6,500 spectators at Victoria Park.[14] This was to be the only time he pulled on the Auckland jersey.

In 1920 he again turned out for the North Shore team but at the end of the season on 8 September he was granted an open transfer by the Auckland Rugby League to play for any club outside the Auckland league district in their weekly meeting. It is unknown as to where he was moving to or if he played again.[15]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

title: Arthur Matthews (rugby league)

question: Why was Arthur Matthews a player of note?

answer: He was a member of the New Zealand rugby league team in 1919 on their tour of Australia. He played in 3 tour matches but did not play in any tests as there were none played on this tour.

critique: The answer should mention that he was a member of the New Zealand rugby league team in 1919 on their tour of Australia. He played in 3 tour matches but did not play in any tests as there were none played on this tour.

critique: It would be better to say simply that Arthur Matthews played in the New Zealand rugby league team when they were in Australia rather than saying how many matches he played in.

critique: The answer should mention that he was a Kiwi number 117.

critique: It is omitted that he played for the Ponsonby United and North Shore Albions senior teams from 1915 to 1920.


split: test

text:
Sharon didn't want his death the be too painful, even though that bastard deserved it. Cheating on her with that bitch at the office. Not his office even, her office. Her husband Mike would often visit her at work during lunch. It was always a surprise to see him there, right when Sharon got back from lunch, sitting in her desk chair.
	“Hey Sharon!” He would say with that toothless smile she had grown to hate. “Just got finished with all my work for the day so I thought I’d drop by and see you.” He would chirp, or something along those lines. But this particular day something different happened. Mike was there, but he wasn't waiting in Sharon’s chair. No, Mike was coming out of her coworker’s office. Sharon saw her giggle at him as he left and make a sly shhhh sign with her finger. They both nervously laughed as Mike walked away with a prideful grin on his face. He would almost always have with him chocolate cheesecake- Sharon’s favorite food. Then they would eat together and Mike would give her a short peck on the lips and leave. That’s how she knew he was cheating on her. She tasted something on Mike’s lips that day, something sweet. It wasn't the chocolate cheesecake though. No, this was a sweet strawberry flavor upon his this lips that she tasted.
	Mike made a lot of money. He was a writer for a popular newspaper company in New York. Sharon hardly made any money. She didn't even have to work actually, Mike made more than enough to keep them both more than alive and happy. Mike was kinda famous too. He wrote the political cartoons for the paper. Sometimes people would recognize him in resturaunts or places like that. They would come up to him with a big smile and shake his hand or ask for a picture. They wouldn’t even acknowledge Sharon. And that made her mad.
	Melissa. That’s the bitch that was doing her husband at her workplace. Sharon wasn’t completely sure it was Melissa, but it was most likely her. Melissa wasn't even that pretty, at least not in Sharon’s eyes. Melissa had to have been at least forty with her brown hair that was starting to show strands of grey. Sharon’s hair had more grey in her blonde hair, she used products to keep it from showing, but it never seemed to work for her. Melissa was also kinda plump. Not fat by any means, but not close to skinny either. Sharon was skinny. Too skinny. She had lost a lot of weight lately and she didn't know why. Maybe Mike didn't like her being skinny, maybe he wanted something more plump like Melissa. That’s what Sharon figured at least.
	Poison. That’s how Mike was going to die. Sharon got the poison from a guy in the city. She knew from some of the ladies in her office that he could get anybody anything that they want, drugs, guns it didn't matter. “I’ve actually never done drugs before, not even in high school or college.” Sharon overheard Melissa saying one day. That bitch.
	“You’ve outdone yourself this time sweetie.” Mike said as he finished the potato soup that Sharon made him. Mike loved potato soup. He was always pestering Sharon to buy it for him. Sharon put the poison in the potato soup, the dealer said it was tasteless and the affects of the poison would kick in in about 6 hours. After dinner they cuddled on the couch. She actually liked being with him like this. It was a shame he had to die. Oh well, he shouldn't have cheated on her. They were in love for 15 years. Their anniversary was just last week and Mike took her ballroom dancing, something they both found out they were getting too old for.
	“I love you so much.” Michael whispered into her ear. His breath smelled like potato soup.
	Sharon smiled at him and stared back into his dark brown eyes. “I love you too babe.” And they started kissing like they were teenagers again, sitting in the back of Mike’s chevy truck.
	Sharon tasted something horrible in her mouth while they were kissing. It tasted like potato soup but something wet and metallic. “The hell, Mike?” Sharon asked as she pushed him away.
	Mike was bleeding. Everywhere. There was blood streaming out of his mouth, but that’s not the only place it was pouring out of. His eyes, ears and nose were all spewing out dark red blood. Sharon screamed. And so did Michael. The look of terror and pain in his eyes suddenly made Sharon forget that he was a dirty cheater. Mike was crying too. She could see the tears over the blood that was now all over his face. Michael was still on top of Sharon while all of this was going on. His blood was all over her body and white blouse.
	“Sharon.” Mike garbled as blood came spitting out if his mouth and onto Sharon and her opened mouth. “Help. 911.” He spewed quickly. But Sharon didn't move. She didn't know what to do. Mike was on top of her and wouldn't move. Couldn't move, so it seemed. This wasn't supposed to happen this way. It wasn't supposed to end like this. The dealer told Sharon that Mike would just die in his sleep. No pain. No blood spewing out of every orrfice in the man’s body. Mike’s torture went on for about forty-five minutes. And then he finally died, laying on top of his wife. Sharon carefully pushed him off of her and onto the floor. She took her blood-soaked clothes off and got in the shower. She was just getting out of the shower when the doorbell rang. “One minute!” she cried out. Sharon wasn’t thinking about her dead husband’s tortured body laying in the living room floor. Sharon wasn’t really thinking about anything at all. She opened the door. And there was Melissa.
	“Happy birthday, Sharon!” Melissa happily shouted. Behind here were probably twenty people. “I’ve been trying to get a hold of Mike for an hour now, this was supposed to be a surprise birthday party. Mike and I planned it ourselves. We were scared that you caught us when you saw him leaving my office a couple weeks ago after you got back from lunch. We even picked out a perfect flavor of cake for you, of course we had to sample some cake ourselves” she giggled. “We finally decided on strawberry.”

title: [MF] A Good Wife

question: Summarize the double plot twist.

answer: The first plot twist is when Sharon realizes that Mike has been cheating on her, and the second is when Sharon poisons Mike and then her cheating lover shows up to surprise her with a birthday party, moments after Mike's death.

critique: It is omitted that Sharon's cheating lover is not just a lover but her husband's mistress.

critique: The answer should mention that Sharon didn't know that Mike was cheating on her.

text: The answer is incorrect. The double plot twist is that Sharon assumed her husband of 15 years, Mike, was cheating on her with Melissa, her officemate. However, Mike wasn't cheating, but planning a surprise birthday for Sharon with Melissa because she and Sharon are officemates. Sharon poisons Mike on her birthday and he dies violently, but then her guests from the office (Melissa + 20 people) arrive and Sharon learns that Mike and Melissa have been planning the party all this time.

category: accuracy

question: Summarize the reasons Sharon decides to kill Mike.

answer: Sharon's husband Mike is cheating on her with her coworker Melissa. Sharon is also convinced that Mike doesn't like her being skinny. Sharon decides to poison Mike's favorite food, potato soup, and watch him die in agony.

critique: The answer should mention that Sharon is also jealous of the attention Mike gets.

critique: The answer omits that Sharon is also jealous of the attention Mike gets.

text: The answer should mention that Sharon just assumed Mike was cheating on her with Melissa.

question: Summarize the source of tension in the article.

answer: The source of tension in the article is the fact that Sharon's husband, Mike, is cheating on her with her coworker, Melissa. Sharon is also upset that Mike is more successful than she is, and that he is more popular than she is. Sharon is also upset that Mike is not attracted to her body type.

critique: The answer omits Sharon's plot to kill Mike.

text: Revise the answer to reflect that Sharon mostly assumed Mike was cheating on her.

question: Explain how Sharon is going to get herself out of the situation now that Melissa and other guests have arrived, and Mike is lying there dead.

answer: Not answer

critique: "Not" - Theresa can add that Sharon is going to stall Melissa, crying and saying that she's going to get ready, that she needs to check on Mike, etc. as she sneaks out the back door, gets a change of clothes, etc.


text:
In the world of radical identity politics, two groups with very different philosophies have been ignoring science in the name of advancing equality: gender feminists and transgender activists.

Gender feminists — who are distinct from traditional equity feminists — refuse to acknowledge the role of evolution in shaping the human brain, and instead promote the idea that sex differences are caused by a socialization process that begins at birth. Gender, according to them, is a construct; we are born as blank slates and it is parents and society at large that produce the differences we see between women and men in adulthood.

The idea that our brains are identical sounds lovely, but the scientific evidence suggests otherwise. Many studies, for instance, have documented the masculinizing effects of prenatal testosterone on the developing brain. And a recent study in the journal Nature’s Scientific Reports showed that testosterone exposure alters the programming of neural stem cells responsible for brain growth and sex differences.

Gender feminists often point to a single study, published in 2015, which claimed it isn’t possible to tell apart male and female brains. But when a group of researchers reanalyzed the underlying data, they found that brains could be correctly identified as female or male with 69% to 77% accuracy. In another study, published in 2016, researchers used a larger sample in conjunction with higher-resolution neuroimaging and were able to successfully classify a brain by its sex 93% of the time.

  Distortion of science hinders progress. When gender feminists start refuting basic biology, people stop listening, and the larger point about equality is lost.

Even if male and female brains _were_ identical structurally, this would fail to say anything about differences in brain functionality. Indeed, studies have shown sex differences across a wide variety of cognitive domains, including verbal fluency (the ability to generate many different words starting with a given letter) and mental rotation (the ability to rotate three-dimensional shapes in the mind). In one study using functional MRI, women outperformed men on the former, while men outperformed women on the latter.

In my experience, proponents touting the “blank slate” view are willing to agree, in private conversations, that neurological sex differences do exist, but they fear that acknowledging as much publicly will justify female oppression. This is backward. As it stands, female-typical traits are seen as inferior and less worthy of respect. _This_ is the real issue the movement fails to address: Nobody wants to be female-typical, not even women.

Distortion of science hinders progress. When gender feminists start refuting basic biology, people stop listening, and the larger point about equality is lost.

Unlike gender feminists, transgender activists firmly believe that gender is a biological, rather than social, reality — but of course they don’t believe that it’s necessarily tied to sex at birth. They also believe that gender identity is quite stable early on, warranting a transition not only for transgender adults, but also young children who say they were born in the wrong body.

From a scientific perspective, they’re partially right: Gender identity is fixed, but only in adults; the same can’t be said for children, whose gender identity is flexible and doesn’t become stable until puberty.

Currently available research literature — including four studies published in the last nine years — suggests that 61% to 88% of gender dysphoric children will desist and grow up to be gay adults. (Or, in my case, a straight adult). They won’t continue to identify as the opposite sex in adulthood. In one study of 139 gender dysphoric boys, 122 (88%) of the boys desisted.

While transitioning can be beneficial for transgender adults, it therefore doesn’t make sense to treat trans children in the same way.

Nevertheless, transgender activists and their allies have branded desistance as a “myth,” and those who suggest otherwise are called bigots or, dismissively, trolls. It’s not hard to understand why. The idea that some gender dysphoric people may grow up to be comfortable in their birth sex is interpreted as a threat to the community. Acknowledging that reality may seem like a slippery slope to denying the need for gender reassignment surgery even in adults.

But ignoring the science around desistance has serious consequences; it means some transgender children will needlessly undergo biomedical interventions, such as hormone treatments. Even detransitioning from a purely social transition can be a difficult process for a child. In one 2011 study of 25 gender dysphoric children, 11 desisted. Of the desisters, two had socially transitioned and regretted it. They struggled to return to their birth sex in part because of fear of teasing from their classmates, and they did not dare to make the change until they enrolled in high school.

Both the gender feminist and transgender movements are operating with good intentions — namely, the desire to obtain the dignity women and transgender people rightly deserve. But it’s never a good idea to dismiss scientific nuances in the name of a compelling argument or an honorable cause. We must allow science to speak for itself.

_Debra W. Soh is a sex writer and sexual neuroscientist at York University in Toronto. Follow her on Twitter: @debra_soh_

FOLLOW THE OPINION SECTION ON TWITTER @LATIMESOPINION AND FACEBOOK

MORE FROM OPINION

WE MAY LIVE IN A POST-TRUTH ERA, BUT NATURE DOES NOT

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP’S TRAVEL BAN. AT LEAST ONE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT IS STILL FUNCTIONING PROPERLY

DON’T BELIEVE TRUMP’S SPIN. THE WAR AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS JUST GETTING STARTED

TRUMP’S TRASH TALK ON JUDGES MAKES TROUBLE FOR GORSUCH

question: What does the text say about male and female brains?

answer: Male and female brains are different. Male brains are masculinized by prenatal testosterone. A study showed that testosterone exposure alters the programming of neural stem cells responsible for brain growth and sex differences. Another study showed that brains could be correctly identified as female or male with 69% to 77% accuracy.

critique: The answer omits that male and female brains are identical structurally.

critique: The answer omits that female brains are not identical to male brains.

critique: The answer omits that the brains can be correctly identified 93% of the time.

critique: The answer omits the fact that the brains can be correctly identified 93% of the time.

critique: The second study is irrelevant to the answer.

critique: The second year is according to the study, not stated.


text:
Over the weekend, our president threatened to shut down the federal government if Congress doesn’t fund his Border Wall, a wall he promised Mexico would pay for — repeatedly.

We also learned that the Republican National Committee paid a quarter of a million dollars last month to the president’s private club, Mar-a-Lago, a flagrant violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which forbids the president from using his office to generate profit.

Oh, and a private member of Mar-a-Lago was allowed to delay a $16 billion project to update the VA’s digital records system.

Which is to say, high-powered journalists interested in covering “real news” had plenty of grist for the mill. Instead, most of them spent weekend whining about comedienne Michelle Wolf, who appeared at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

Is it any wonder the president’s hysterical shrieking about “fake news” resonates with his supporters?

The loudest voices in our free press are driven almost entirely by the pursuit of profit, not the truth. At the top of that list are the right-wing propagandists who get paid millions to exalt the grievances of their predominantly white, male audience — the folks who forged Trump’s base.

But it also includes the so-called “mainstream” media, who have acted as Trump’s loyal press agents from the moment he entered politics.

Michelle Wolf roasted lots of folks during her remarks, which was her job. But the comment that offended the assembled media A-listers most was the one they knew to be most disturbingly true:

  _"You guys are obsessed with Trump. Did you used to date him? Because you pretend like you hate him, but I think you love him. I think what no one in this room wants to admit is that Trump has helped all of you. He couldn't sell steaks or vodka or water or college or ties or Eric, but he has helped you. He's helped you sell your papers and your books and your TV. You helped create this monster, and now you're profiting off of him."_

As much as journalists hate to admit it, our Fourth Estate has been in a tacit alliance with Trump all along.

Heck, they created Trump. The incessant coverage of his rallies and rants — remember all those feeds of empty podiums? — was what granted him the appearance of legitimacy. Without this attention, Trump would have remained a fringe figure, a demagogue and conman desperate to fan racial resentment into audience share.

Don’t believe me? Here’s how the chairman of CBS, Les Moonves, explained it in February of 2016, speaking at a media conference sponsored by Morgan Stanley:

  _“It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS … Donald’s place in this election is a good thing. Man, who would have expected the ride we’re all having right now? … The money’s rolling in and this is fun. I’ve never seen anything like this, and this is going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”_

  Ultimately, Trump and his cabal will be held accountable only if we hold ourselves accountable.

Every reporter and pundit and politician who is wasting time defending or debunking Wolf’s routine — rather than focusing on the kleptocratic aims of this administration, or the simple fact that Flint, Michigan still doesn’t have drinking water — will be judged by history. Not just as peddlers of fake news, but as the failed guardians of democracy.

The president’s ardent enablers will never hold him accountable for his corruptions, because they elected a bully to make them feel safe, not an adult who would govern.

Therefore, the rest of us need to recognize our own complicity in this cycle. If we continue to focus on offensive tweets and comedy routines, our profit-mad media outlets will continue to feed us fake news.

Ultimately, Trump and his cabal will be held accountable only if we hold ourselves accountable.

question: What does the text say about the White House Correspondents' Association dinner?

answer: Michelle Wolf roasted lots of folks during her remarks, which was her job. The comment that offended the assembled media A-listers most was the one they knew to be most disturbingly true. She said that Trump has helped all of the media.

critique: The response misses to mention that the dinner was the White House Correspondents' Association dinner.

critique: The answer should mention that the dinner is an annual event.

critique: The answer should mention that Michelle Wolf roasted the assembled media.

critique: The response misses to mention that the dinner is an annual event where journalists and politicians get together.

critique: The answer omits the fact that the dinner is an annual event.

critique: It is omitted that Michelle Wolf's remark ignited a feud between the White House and the media.

text: The response should also mention that she blames the media for creating the monster that is Trump.

category: coverage

question: Summarize what CBS chariman, Les Moonves, said at a 2016 media conference.

answer: Moonves said that Trump's place in the election was a good thing for CBS. He said that the money was rolling in and that this was fun. He said that Trump was a good thing for CBS.

critique: The answer should mention that Moonves said this was a terrible thing to say.

critique: The repetition of the same sentence is unnecessary.

question: What does the text say about the Republican National Committee?

answer: The Republican National Committee paid a quarter of a million dollars last month to the president's private club, Mar-a-Lago, a violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

critique: The answer should mention that the payment was a violation of the emoluments clause.

critique: The second sentence is unnecessary. "The Republican National Committee" should be mentioned in the first sentence to encompass both sentences.

critique: The response is missing a detail about the emoluments clause.

critique: The answer does not mention the emoluments clause.

critique: The emoluments violation is a side point. The main point is that the RNC paid Mar-a-Lago.

question: What does the text say about Ivanka Trump?

answer: No answer

critique: It is omitted that the author believes that Ivanka Trump is complicit in her father's corruptions.

critique: The response misses to mention that the article does not mention anything about Ivanka Trump.

critique: The text does not mention anything about Ivanka Trump.

critique: The article doesn't mention anything noteworthy about Ivanka Trump.


text:
image copyrightGetty Images

image captionThe two-block long mural reading "Black Lives Matter" was painted overnight outside the White House

THE WASHINGTON DC MAYOR HAS CHANGED THE NAME OF A PLAZA OUTSIDE THE WHITE HOUSE TO "BLACK LIVES MATTER PLAZA" IN A REBUKE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP.

Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, also unveiled a two-block long mural painted onto the street leading up to the White House declaring "Black Lives Matter".

She also demanded that Mr Trump remove federal soldiers from Washington.

The mayor's defiant, but largely symbolic, acts come as more protests are expected in DC at the weekend.

The demonstrations staged over the past week in Washington drew draconian responses from the White House, with Mr Trump ordering thousands of federal troops into the city.

The president was criticised for ordering authorities to forcibly remove peaceful protesters from a square outside the White House so he could cross the street to take a photo in front of a church.

Marking the square in front of St John's Church with the new "Black Lives Matter Plaza" sign on Friday, Ms Bowser said: "As Washingtonians, we simply all want to be here together in peace to demonstrate that in America, you can peacefully assemble, you can bring grievances to your government, and you can demand change".

The mayor also tweeted a video clip of the giant "Black Lives Matter" street mural emblazoned on the road in front of the White House in bright yellow paint.

"There was a dispute this week about whose street this is," the mayor's chief of staff John Falcicchio tweeted as the mural was unveiled.

"Mayor Bowser wanted to make it abundantly clear that this is DC's street and honour demonstrators who were peacefully protesting on Monday evening."

But the move by the mayor was panned by the local chapter of the Black Lives Matter Global Network, which called it "a performative distraction from real policy changes" and a way "to appease white liberals while ignoring our demands".

More black residents live in Washington than white residents, but the city has some of the highest levels of economic disparity between black and white households in the US.

On Twitter, Mr Trump threatened to "bring in a different group of men and women" to DC if Ms Bowser doesn't treat federal National Guard troops "well", though it was unclear to whom he was referring.

What else has the mayor done?

Ms Bowser wrote on Thursday to Mr Trump, asking him to "withdraw all extraordinary federal law enforcement and military presence from Washington DC."

Her letter notes that the curfew in Washington has been lifted as of Friday morning, and that the city police are capable of dealing with the remaining peaceful protests.

"The deployment of federal law enforcement personnel and equipment are inflaming demonstrators and adding to the grievances of those who, by and large, are peacefully protesting for change and for reforms to the racist and broken systems that are killing Black Americans," Ms Bowser wrote.

She also criticised troops for not wearing any identification, allowing them operate outside "established chains of commands," she said.

"This multiplicity of forces can breed dangerous confusion, such as when helicopters are used in a war-like tactic to frighten and disperse peaceful protestors," Ms Bowser wrote.

"My view is that law enforcement should be in place to protect the rights of American citizens, not restrict them."

image copyrightGetty Images

image copyrightGetty Images

image captionSome troops have not worn identifying insignia

Ms Bowser has repeatedly clashed with the White House since peaceful protesters were cleared from Lafayette Square Park - outside the White House - on Monday so Mr Trump could visit a church. She called the decision to use violence on the protesters "shameful".

She also threatened to take legal action against his administration his week after Trump officials floated the idea of taking control of the Washington DC police force.

According to the Washington Post, at least 16 law enforcement and military agencies have sent armed personnel to Washington.

Troops from the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice), the Army and National Guard are among those who have faced off with protesters in the past week.

Washington DC is not a state, and the mayor does not have the same power as a state governor who can decide when and how to deploy National Guard troops.

The Washington DC National Guard report directly to the Secretary of the Army.

A mayor lashes out

ANALYSIS BY TARA MCKELVEY, BBC WASHINGTON

Mayor Bowser has taken a strong stance against the president, denouncing his decision to bring National Guard units into Washington.

In a letter to the president, she described federal law-enforcement officers and the National Guard units in the city as "extraordinary" and demanded that they leave. She has also said there is a "legal question" about whether the president can deploy the troops here.

However, it was unclear whether there really is legal backing to her claim. She is a Democratic mayor in a largely Democratic city, and she is popular among her constituents. When she says the troops should not be on Washington streets, she is expressing an opinion held by many of the people who live here.

Washington is a federal city, though, and federal authorities have significant power in this town.

For that reason, she does not have much legal recourse. In truth, she has little power and most likely she will have to stand by and watch the president's plans unfold - like the others who live here.

question: Summarize the views of opposing sides in this article.

answer: Most of the supporting views are based'sustaining and comforting: For example, Bowser states in her letter to President Trump that the use of extreme force is not good in the current climate. Bowser's views on the use of force contrast with President Trump's more militant and militant use of " warriors " combined with the fact that the National Guard - federally armed force - under Trump is aimed at allowing passivity.

critique: The response contains inaccurate information.

critique: "Most of the supporting views are based'sustaining and comforting: For example, Bowser states in her letter to President Trump that the use of extreme force is not good in the current climate. Bowser's views on the use of force contrast with President Trump's more militant and militant use of " warriors " combined with the fact that the National Guard - federally armed force - under Trump is aimed at allowing passivity." - this is incorrect. The views are not based on sustaining and comforting. The mayor's views are in support of peaceful protests and denouncing the use of extreme force. The National Guard's presence is aimed at allowing passivity.

critique: The highlighted text is inaccurate and incoherent

critique: Inaccurate analogy when describing Trump's militaristic. It should be the National Guard. Additionally Trump's use of militant is inaccurate.

critique: The passage does not mention anything about the National Guard being armed.

critique: "Most of the supporting views are based'sustaining and comforting: For example, Bowser states in her letter to President Trump that the use of extreme force is not good in the current climate." - this is incorrect. The mayor's views are not supporting views.

question: Summarize the context for Black Lives Matter-both the group and the mural.

answer: Black Lives Matter was formed as a response to police brutality against black people. The word mural refers to an outdoor artwork, many times large. Blacks not only have been the victims of disproportionate bullying by police, but the have also been far less likely to see justice after an incident.

critique: The second sentence is not relevant to the question.

critique: The article doesn't mention anything about disproportionate bullying by police.

critique: This is worded awkwardly and contains mostly extraneous information.

critique: There isn't any evidence to suggest that the mural is a response to police brutality.


text:
"SQUIRE! Fetch me my horse! I’m going out hunting!"

"Yes sire!"

Lousy, ungrateful, stupid bastard. Squire? Fucking squire? Jesus man you know my name, I’m Perry, like I tell you every fucking day. And don’t even get me started on the hunting. Hunting? Why don’t you just describe it accurately and call it seating your fat ass on the back of that poor sop of a horse and forcing it to canter round your shitty little forest, while you giggle with glee at the delightful experience of bouncing up and down. And all the while you’re accompanied by a large band of trumpeters, making absolutely sure every single animal with a brain has enough time to hear this ludicrous ensemble of idiocy, pack up its family, maybe have a small bite to eat and move the fuck away. Quite frankly, anything stupid enough to be caught by this moronic party had it coming. If the hunting party didn’t get them, an angry 6 year old with a small stick would’ve done the next morning.

But I’ve side-tracked. The more important debate here is how the fuck this man managed to become a knight. I’d call him stupid but that would be an insult to uneducated peons everywhere. He is his own class of stupid, so far down the IQ scale he may have broken into previously unexplored realms of negative IQ. Oh, you think I’m being mean? Maybe a bit overdramatic? Oh no no no. Let me explain. This is the man who, when getting out of a double bed, rolled over the wrong way to the other side of the bed and, rather than realise his mistake and either rolling the other way to escape the bed, or continuing his roll to reach the other side, shouted desperately for help, for he had lost the floor and was surely doomed. This is the man who picked up a sword from the wrong end and failed to understand his mistake. This is the man who put a helmet on his foot and complained when he couldn’t walk properly. Please understand, my master is genuinely something else. I’ve yet to theorise how he became a knight. Oh yes, his father was a knight and that grants him an easy ride to the role, but I am amazed that, after discovering that his son had the intelligence of a melon, his dear father hadn’t pushed him to follow an alternative career path, something more appropriate to his level like, ooh I don’t know, an early grave.

Too far? Perhaps. But you don’t have to serve under this infantile baboon. Every waking moment of my day is spent entertaining his every want and need, and oh boy does he have a lot of needs. Sometimes – and I wish I was joking – he struggles with wiping his own ass. Guess who gets that fantastic job? That’s right, Squire Perry, his faithful fucking assistant. Other highlights include: serving him his food; helping him eat his food; cleaning his food when he spills it on the floor, like the clumsy halfwit he is; cleaning his bed; cleaning his clothes; organising his equipment. Oh, and how could I forget, fetching his fucking horse when he wants to go on a fucking hunting expedition.

I should go, he might cry if he doesn’t get his bloody horse soon. Ooh, that is a tempting prospect... but no. It wouldn’t be obeying my fucking duty. I swear to fucking god. Pray for me, would you?

title: Perry [HF]

question: What does the excerpt say about the stupidity of squire Perry's knight?

answer: The squire believes that the knight is so stupid that he can't even dress himself properly. He lacks common sense and intelligence. The squire believes that the knight is so stupid that he can't even wipe his own ass. He is his own class of stupid.

critique: The answer should mention that the knight is also a moron.

critique: "I’d call him stupid but that would be an insult to uneducated peons everywhere. He is his own class of stupid, so far down the IQ scale he may have broken into previously unexplored realms of negative IQ." is evidence of more than one way the squire sees the knight's stupidity. Omit the multiple instance of 'so' from the second sentence and the final sentence.

critique: The answer should mention the knight's lack of intelligence.

critique: The answer should mention the knight's ineptitude with a sword and a helmet.

critique: The answer should mention the knight's incompetence with a sword.

critique: The response inaccurately mentions that the Knight is incapable of dressing himself properly. He is incapable of putting his helmet on his foot.


text:
_STOREFRONT HITCHCOCK_ is a 1998 American concert film featuring Robyn Hitchcock and directed by Jonathan Demme. It was conceived as “a document not a documentary”,[1] and the performance was shot in New York City in December 1996, in an abandoned used clothing store on 14th street.[2] Over the course of the performance, simple props and set pieces are varied, such as a bare lightbulb and a tomato sculpture, and occasionally a passerby on the street glances in.[3]

Jonathan Demme met Hitchcock after Demme attended a live show, and offered to direct a live performance video for a song, which was then revised to be a full concert.[4] Demme was inspired to film in the storefront setting by a Hungarian theatre group, Squat Theatre, who operated in New York City in the 70s and 80s and typically performed in a storefront against a large plate glass window facing the street.[5]

Demme subsequently cast Hitchcock in small roles in two other films, _The Manchurian Candidate_ and _Rachel Getting Married_, and used one of his songs in _The Truth About Charlie_.[6]

Setlist

All songs composed by Robyn Hitchcock.

1.  “Devil's Radio”
2.  “1974”
3.  “Filthy Bird”
4.  “Let's Go Thundering”
5.  “I'm Only You”
6.  “Glass Hotel”
7.  “I Something You”
8.  “The Yip! Song”
9.  “I Am Not Me”
10. “You and Oblivion”
11. “Airscape”
12. “Freeze”
13. “Alright Yeah”
14. “No, I Don't Remember Guildford”

Personnel

-   Robyn Hitchcock - vocals, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, harmonica
-   Tim Keegan - guitar, vocals
-   Deni Bonet - violin

Release

The film premiered at the SXSW Film Festival on March 19, 1998.[7] It was funded by Orion Pictures just before it declared bankruptcy and was bought by MGM, and did not receive the hoped-for distribution or promotion in the United States.[8] In Hitchcock's words, “when MGM kind of unzipped their stomachs to see what they'd swallowed, they pulled out Orion, and they cut open Orion's stomach. And inside Orion's stomach was wriggling Storefront Hitchcock, a little kind of minuscule million-dollar project that MGM wasn't particularly interested in.”[9] In fact in its original US release it only played in one theater in New York City, Film Forum, for one week starting in November 18, 1998.[10]

The film was released on DVD in 2000 by MGM.

Reception

Dennis Harvey in _Variety_ said that Hitchcock's “rich, supple voice shines, and his seemingly impromptu between-song patter suggests a pleasing form of mild insanity” also saying that “the songs are the real attraction here, and they provide a good overview of a large personal catalog.”[11] Stephen Holden in The New York Times wrote that the film “captures the sensibility of this smart, quirky folk-rocker in the most appealing possible light”,[12] while Scott Tobias in The A.V. Club wrote that “Demme's relaxed, ego-free direction is a reminder that the quirky humanist behind Melvin And Howard and Married To The Mob hasn't lost his touch”, and “his clean, elegant compositions enhance the intimacy of the performance”.[13] However Douglas Wolk of the Village Voice described it as a “simple but nicely presented document of a middling Hitchcock solo performance”, complaining that “the set list dips generously into his lamest recent material”.[14]

Soundtrack

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

title: Storefront Hitchcock

question: Summarize everything relating to Jonathan Demme's filmography.

answer: Demme traditionally makes documentary, not concert, videos. However, he filmed Hitchcock's performance, then kept some of Hitchcock's songs while other his own. Additionally, he directed Hitchcock in two other films: The Manchurian Candidate and Rachel Getting Married. Later he adopted a Hitchcock song for The Truth About Charlie.

critique: It is not stated that Demme traditionally makes documentary, not concert, videos. However, he filmed Hitchcock's performance, then kept some of Hitchcock's songs while other his own. Additionally, he directed Hitchcock in two other films: The Manchurian Candidate and Rachel Getting Married. Later he adopted a Hitchcock song for The Truth About Charlie.

critique: The article does not say that Demme typically makes documentary videos. It says he filmed a concert video.

critique: Demme did not typically make documentary films, as the article states that it was "a document, not a documentary." The term "concert video" implies that it's not a documentary.

critique: "Demme traditionally makes documentary, not concert, videos." - this is incorrect. Demme directed Storefront Hitchcock, a concert film.

critique: The answer should mention that Demme used Hitchcock's song in The Truth About Charlie.

critique: Demme's concert film with Hitchcock isn't a documentary, but a concert film.

question: Summarize everything relating to the performance featured in the film.

answer: The performance features Robyn Hitchcock and was filmed in an abandoned used clothing store in New York. Simple props and set pieces were used, such as a bare light bulb and a tomato sculpture. During the performance, a passerby occasionally glanced in.

critique: The review commenting on the performance noted it was middling. This should be reflected in the response.

critique: The response could include more details about the performance.

critique: The answer should mention that the film was conceived as "a document, not a documentary".

critique: The answer omits that the performance was shot in December 1996.

critique: The answer should mention that the performance was filmed in December 1996.

critique: The answer should mention the songs performed.

question: What does the article say about Hitchcock as a musician?

answer: Hitchcock's voice shines and he is a middling solo performer. He made two tracks with Tim Keegan and Deni Bonet.

critique: The article does not say anything about his solo performance.

critique: The article does not say anything about Hitchcock's solo performance.

critique: The article doesn't say anything about Hitchcock's solo performance.

critique: His performance is not mentioned as his contribution

critique: The article doesn't say that he made two tracks with Tim Keegan and Deni Bonet. It says he made two films with them.

critique: The answer should mention that the film received mostly positive reviews.

question: What does the article say about Hitchcock's career during the 1980s?

answer: No answer

critique: The article does not mention anything about Hitchcock's career in the 1980s.

critique: The response misses to mention that the article does not talk about Hitchcock's career during the 1980s.

critique: The answer should mention the Hungarian theatre group, Squat Theatre.

critique: The question is asking for information that is not in the article.

critique: There is no evidence to show that Hitchcock had any career during the 1980s.

critique: The article does not mention anything about Hitchcock's career during the 1980s.


text:
Nimblud was a hub for traders and travelers who wished to cross the seas to the west.  The people there built mostly white buildings made of sharp straight angles to long thin points up into the sky.  The rest of the land was fairly flat which made it look like a pin cushion from a distance.  But when it was night the multicolored lights would make the city glow a beautiful kaleidoscope of colors.  This also was a pleasant help to sailors as they came into the city.
A beast who used to be a man walked into the city.  He was larger than any man and barrel chested.  His skin was orange and he had an under-bite and two wide-but short horns growing from the front of his forehead.  His beard was long but missing the hair on top of his head.

The brute wandered into the city and the townsfolk of humans, spirits, and gnomes all strayed away from him.  He walked straight to the local tavern and sat an empty seat at the dice game currently in progress.  “You buying in big fella?” Asked an older man in a robe currently shaking some dice in his hand.  The brute said nothing and just sat staring at him.

“Okay……” the old man dropped the dice into a bowl and everyone watched the dice spin waiting to see if the man had won or lost.  The old man could feel the brute staring at him still but kept his eyes on the dice.

Suddenly the brute smashed the dice table with one of his hands and grabbed the old man up by the front of his robe and slammed him against the opposite wall.  “Remember me?” the brute growled.  Pulling his face closer to the old man and displaying his sharp teeth.

The other players at the table were enraged and went to draw their swords onto the brute but he simply backhanded them and knocked them through the tables behind them.  Then he punched the wall next to the old man’s head creating a fist sized hole in the wall.

“I swear I think you have the wrong person!”  The old man said.

“You made me like this!”  The brute said and threw him back into the other men right as they were getting up.  He stomped towards them all when a man from the corner stabbed him in side.  The brute just stared at him and squashed his head with one of his hands.  Then the pulled the sword out and bite into the blade shattering it.  His wound began to emit a black smoke but then his wound slowly sealed up.

Soon the town guards came in and rushed to attack him.  He caught their glaives in his hands and shattered those blades too.  Stunned the guards stood in shock until the brute ran up and dove into them feet first sending them hurtling outside to smash into a wall and shattering a few of their bones.  When he got up he turned to see the old man running out the back door.

The brute charged after him.  In his pursuit he killed one of the gamblers when his huge foot crushed him in his path.  He leapt through the wall and landed close enough to the old man to grab him by the leg and hold him upside down in front of his face.

“Okay I’m sorry okay!  I did not know it would be permanent!  I didn’t mean to do it!”  The old man pleaded.

He had convinced the brute to try some magical pixie powder he had bought from a traveling mage.  The old man did not want to try it on himself so he convinced a local teenager in the village he was at from across the western villages.  It had transformed that boy into an ogre like creature and wiped his mind of his memories.  At the time he slinked away hoping the brute would never remember what he had did and moved to this village to start a new life.

“Cure me!!!” the brute roared!  “Give me my life back!!”  His thunderous voice echoed into the alleyways.  The rest of the towns guards had surrounded him and the old man during the shouting.  The old man hung there covering his face and trembling.

“I can’t!  I can’t!  I’m not a mage!  I was told it would give me power but I didn’t know how to use it!  I’m sorry!!  I’m sorry!!”

The brute’s anger disappeared from his face and he closed his eyes and looked down at the ground.

Then he swung the old man hard into the ground smashing his face like a watermelon onto the street.  They turned in disgust giving the brute enough time to swing the old man one more time into the guards and clearing a path for him to escape.  He leapt past them and jumped onto a large brick platform that had been resting outside of the town.   It began to rise into the air and once it had gotten off the ground it began to fly away off into the starry night between the desert pyramids.

A figure in the corner sat cross legged with its back towards the brute.  “I told you it was a waste of time.  Once I found out your past I could tell he was just a fool.”

“I know…. But I lost everything and once you gave me back my memories it broke my heart in ways you could never imagine.  I’m no longer Dash the man or Gorrak the damned.  Now I am someone else entirely and I wanted just one more chance to be the person I was originally supposed to be.  Now I have nothing.”

“Then we will call you something different.  Perhaps Korrash is fitting?  Regardless I gave you back your memories and helped you find the man who did this to you.  Are you ready to pledge yourself to me?”  The creature slowly got up and turned around.  Its head and face was wrinkled beyond human capacity.  Like a naked mole rate.  When it flipped up its hood all you could see were two small white pupiless eyes and a tiny mouth with big fish like lips.

“I do.  I pledge my servitude to you Mordid”.  Korrash said as he slumped down to sit down on the floor.  He had lost his past and his future.  All he had now was the present and his promise to Mordid.

They rode in silence atop the levitating brick platform in silence.  The cool wind was refreshing as they passed under the starts in the black night sky.  Mordid thought back pleasantly to day he had sold that transformative powder to that poor old man.

title: [FN] The lost life

question: What does the brute mean when he says he "was just trying to get [back to being] the man he was supposed to be"?

answer: It may be implied that the brute means that he had everything he ever needed, including power and vitality, when he was human and not an ogre, but then he changed; altering his life always for the worse and having to convince himself he is becoming accustomed to his new life and pushing aside memories of the past that are painful and indicate loss.

critique: The answer is too long and does not answer the question.

text: The answer given is inaccurate. The story states that the old man convinced the brute when he was a teenager to try a magical pixie powder he had acquired. Unfortunately, it turned the brute into a giant ogre and wiped away his memories. He seized being Dash the man or Gorak the damned, became furious about his fate, and wished to be himself again. That's what the brute meant by that phrase. The model should consider rewriting its answer like this.

question: Do you think that the man really had been the one to transform the brute, and why or why not?

answer: No, the man had been lying to the brute. He had been the one to transform the brute, but he had not known that the transformation would be permanent.

question: How does the brute know that the man who gave him back his memories is not lying? He could have planted false memories.

answer: It is not stated.

critique: It is more accurate to say that the answer is not readily apparent, though it may be implied by the way he confronts the old man about the identity of the caster. "I need you to bring me his name.  I can’t believe you would do this to me.  I trusted you.  I gave you everything." It would be a further stretch to say it is stated since everything relating to that is in a line spoken by a third-party observer.

critique: It is not stated but it is implied that the brute trusts the old man.

critique: It is implied that he knows because he still has his memories.

question: How do we come to find out Mordid has been engineering this scheme and manipulating the brute for a very long time?

answer: The brute finally realizes he is being played by Mordid sometime after he gets his memory back. Upon this realization, he pledges himself to Mordid. It is unclear if Mordid is capable of undoing the transformation.

critique: The answer is not clear about how Mordid has been engineering this scheme and manipulating the brute for a very long time.

critique: The answer is not clear on how Mordid has been engineering the scheme.

critique: The answer is not clear on how Mordid has been engineering this scheme and manipulating the brute for a very long time.

text: The first and second sentences don't make sense. How is it possible for the brute to find out Mordid had been playing him and then pledge himself to him? The answer should be rewritten logically.

category: coherence


text:
In a sun-drenched, sticky, tourist infected corner of Orlando, FL rests a Whole Foods Market. It was strategically planted within a few miles of Disney property in the hope we'd see our share of the tourist economy.

That's where I work as a customer service supervisor.

It's a very transient place. The tourists, our team members, upper management, everyone is always arriving or departing. We have a permenent Uber lane. There are little grab and go shampoos and shaving creams at every register. A whole section of our store is dedicated to hotel-related items. We even sell sandwiches in adorable, airplane shaped boxes. Every customer you meet is heading home soon and all the employees will tell you they're "forming an exit plan". You'll work with a guy for 6 months and one day he's vanished. The next thing you hear is a Facebook notification - "Loading up the car for Portland, wish me luck Orlando!"

As a result it can be easy to stop concerning yourself with the everyday details of those around you, even co-workers you see ten or twenty times a day. No one sticks around here.

Case in point, this Asian chick whose been working behind the Juice Bar for somewhere between 4 months to a year, I can never tell. It just so happens most of my day is spent in a customer service booth directly across from this Bar. At that distance, maybe 50 feet, we'd exchange simple gestures - a glance here or nod there. I can tell you very little about her. She's maybe 5'3 with Dark Brown, chin length hair pinned up into a crayola orange beanie and covered neck to knees in an over-sized, white chefs coat. That's about it. One of the few other things I'd noticed was a handwritten name tag reading, "Bok Choy" in black permenent marker.

I'll mention that this isn't so strange a thing to see on a name tag at Whole Foods Market. We have a store manager whom we regard as "Juice" because he's a 6'9 hipster with a bright orange Slayer beard. On any given day his name tag might say "Juice", "The Juice" or "Juiced". There's also a few hippies from the holistic team who renamed themselves after their astrological sign. A person's name tag can say literally anything here.

This day I decided to order a Juice, which is unusual for me. Approaching the register, I say, a bit loudly, "Hey, Bok Choy, what's up?".

A cold stare came back in my direction.

"My name is Melanie. Seriously, Jason? I'm wearing a name tag and everything."

I put a stupid look on my face and pointed at her chest. As I'm dropping my finger arrogantly towards the tag it finally hits me - the tag says "Favorite Vegetable". Not name, but "Favorite Vegetable". The real one, it turns out, was attached to her beanie.

Instead of stopping here, as would be prudent, I did as I often do and talked myself into a worse place.

"But you can see where that's confusing for me, right Melanie? I'm over there, you're over here. That's a name tag from 50 feet away. I have basically no vantage point on your beanie. Your head is obstructed by the wheatgrass grinder."

Now she starts laying on the sarcasm.

"But it says Bok Choy AND Favorite Vegetable, dude." The font is nearly the same size on both."

"But it's a name tag in the spot where normal people pin name tags! I'm not responsible for checking whether it, just this once, also says Favorite Vegetable."

"It's green", she says. "The name tag is green and has a little cauliflower head sticking out of the top of it. Did you also not notice those two things?"

"I was thinking the Produce team just got cool, custom ones. Listen, people get nick names around here, ya know?"

"And so you thought they nicknamed the new Asian girl Bok Choy and put it on her name tag?"

I ordered my juice. It was a Bombay Sunrise - OJ, Turmeric and Ginger. Needless to say, She took a few "liberties" with the recipe and I nearly spit fire.

title: [HM] Bok Choy

question: What does the story say about the narrator's relationship with Melanie?

answer: The narrator and Melanie work at the same Whole Foods Market in Orlando, Florida. They are both customer service supervisors. The narrator has noticed that Melanie has been working behind the Juice Bar for a few months to a year. He has seen her many times, and he can tell very little about her. He knows she's about 5'3" with dark brown, chin-length hair. She wears an over-sized white chef's coat and a crayola orange beanie. She wears a handwritten name tag that reads "Bok Choy" in black permanent marker.

critique: The answer should mention that the narrator misreads her name tag.

critique: The answer should mention that Melanie is annoyed by the narrator's mistake.

critique: It is omitted that during the encounter with Jason in the Whole Foods, she reminded him that her name is Melanie with sarcasm.

critique: The answer should mention the narrator's exchange with Melanie.

critique: The answer should mention that the narrator and Melanie have a tense relationship.

critique: The answer should mention their interaction.

critique: The answer should mention the narrator's mistake.

question: What does the story say about Melanie's home country?

answer: No answer

critique: The story does not mention Melanie's country of origin.

critique: The answer should mention that the story does not mention Melanie's home country.

critique: The answer should mention that the story doesn't say anything about Melanie's home country.


text:
Published on

Thursday, September 26, 2019

by

The Thursday morning release of the official whistleblower complaint at the heart of a controversy which has triggered an official impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump intensified concern among Democrats and outside critics who say the complaint goes beyond a single phone call by alleging a wider White House conspiracy to cover it up.

"Sounds like the cover-up and the crime are both impeachable," tweeted _Sludge_ reporter Alex Kotch.

"Instead of hiring burglars to investigate political rival Trump asked a foreign government to do it for him and then tried to cover it up."
—Ari Berman, _Mother Jones_

As _Common Dreams_ reported, the scandal stems from a July phone call between Trump and Zelensky in which Trump asked the Ukrainian president for a "favor"—to investigate Biden's son Hunter's employment by Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings from 2014 to 2019.  A memorandum of a condensed version of the conversation was released Wednesday.

During a Thursday hearing of the House Intelligence Committee featuring Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said that the complaint indicates that the cover-up is aimed at concealing the knowing criminal behavior of the administration.

"The whistleblower complaint has exposed a criminal effort to extort political dirty work from a foreign government, and a massive cover-up orchestrated by the White House," said Castro.

The complaint (pdf) alleges that, after the call, White House officials moved to put a word-for-word transcript of the conversation into a server separate from the normal one reserved for such matters.

"In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to 'lock down' all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced—as is customary—by the White House situation room," the whistleblower writes in the complaint.

Particularly, the complaint claims, intervention came from the administration's legal counsel.

"The public deserves to have full transparency regarding Trump's abuse of office."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

"White House officials told me they were 'directed' by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization and distribution to Cabinet-level officials," says the whistleblower.

Specifically implicated in the complaint are the president's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and Attorney General William Barr.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Never Miss a Beat.

GET OUR BEST DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

"They knew the President had violated his oath of office," said Rep. Val Demings (D-Fl.).

The cover-up is "as bad, if not worse, than Watergate," _Mother Jones_ writer Ari Berman said.

"Instead of hiring burglars to investigate political rival Trump asked a foreign government to do it for him and then tried to cover it up," said Berman.

_New Yorker _writer Susan B. Glasser wrote Thursday that the phone call is part of a pattern of behavior:

  The Ukraine scandal is, among many other things, a portrait of American foreign policy gone terribly wrong, hijacked by a President who has shredded the vast U.S. national-security apparatus in favor of a rogue operation looking out for his own interests and overseen by his personal agent, Rudy Giuliani. To anyone who has been paying attention, this has been the President’s approach to foreign policy from the start: it has been all Trump, all the time.

Trump's pattern of behavior, and the current scandal being simply a part of it, was a point that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also made in a statement Thursday.

"This whistleblower complaint is only the tip of an iceberg of corrupt, illegal, and immoral behavior by this president," said Sanders. "What the House must do is thoroughly investigate Trump's cover-up of this call and his other attempts to use government resources to help his re-election campaign. The public deserves to have full transparency regarding Trump's abuse of office."

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said on Twitter that Congress must act as soon as possible to stop the president from continuing to use "the Oval Office as his campaign office."

"We cannot let the occupant make a mockery of our Constitution any longer," said Omar. "Congress must cancel the upcoming recess so we can finally impeach this president."

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. COMMON DREAMS IS NOT YOUR NORMAL NEWS SITE. WE DON'T SURVIVE ON CLICKS. WE DON'T WANT ADVERTISING DOLLARS. WE WANT THE WORLD TO BE A BETTER PLACE. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. WITHOUT YOUR SUPPORT WE SIMPLY DON'T EXIST.

PLEASE SELECT A DONATION METHOD:

question: What does the text say about Giuliani?

answer: According to the whistleblower, White House attorneys told them to remove official records of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky from the common server. The records point fingers at Giuliani and Attorney General Barr-two people who could be impeached alongside Trump. Democrats believe Giuliani has been using his position to garner support for the Trump re-election campaign.

critique: Giuliani and Barr are not the only ones who could be impeached alongside Trump.

critique: Giuliani is not mentioned in the article.

critique: Remove the second sentence as it is not relevant to Giuliani.

critique: The records don't point fingers at Giuliani and Barr-they point fingers at Trump.

critique: Giuliani is only mentioned in the context of the impeachment inquiry and is not the focus of the article.

critique: Giuliani and Barr are not the ones who could be impeached alongside Trump.

text: The response contains extraneous information. According to the text, Giuliani is the president's lawyer and is implicated in the complaint.

question: What does the text say about the whistleblower complaint?

answer: The whistleblower complaint is at the heart of a controversy that has triggered an official impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on charges of corruption and wrongdoing. The whistleblower complaint alleges that a wider White House conspiracy led by Donald Trump to cover up the phone call between Trump and Zelensky where Trump asked the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden's son, Hunter. The investigation is seen as an abuse of office by Trump, and the whistleblower complaint is indicative of a criminal effort to extort political dirty work from a foreign government.

critique: The last line provides clarity on the criminal nature of the complaint, but in doing so, omits to mention that it contains criminal conduct and is seen as such by the author of this article. This can be added while remaining succinct.

critique: The whistleblower complaint is not indicative of a criminal effort to extort political dirty work from a foreign government.

critique: The whistleblower complaint is not the heart of the controversy.

critique: The whistleblower complaint is not seen as an abuse of office by Trump.

critique: The whistleblower complaint has also been seen as a massive cover-up orchestrated by the White House.

critique: The whistleblower complaint is seen as an abuse of office by Trump.


text:
1.  Home
2.  News
3.  Spaceflight

SpaceX will attempt the first launch of its new giant rocket, the Falcon Heavy, on Feb. 6, the company's CEO Elon Musk said Saturday (Jan. 27).

The much-anticipated maiden flight of SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket will lift off from the historic Launch Pad 39A — the same one used for NASA's Apollo moon missions and space shuttle flights — at the agency's Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Musk's announcement came three days after SpaceX test-fired the Falcon Heavy's 27 first-stage engines for the first time at the launchpad on Wednesday (Jan. 24).

"Aiming for first flight of Falcon Heavy on Feb. 6 from Apollo launchpad 39A at Cape Kennedy," Musk wrote on Twitter. "Easy viewing from the public causeway." [In Photos: SpaceX's 1st Falcon Heavy Rocket at the Pad]

While Musk did not specify a launch time for the Falcon Heavy's first flight, the mission may lift off during a three-hour launch window that opens at 1:30 p.m. EST (1830 GMT), according to a SpaceNews report. A backup launch date is available the following day, SpaceNews added.

[SpaceX's first Falcon Heavy rocket stands atop Launch Pad 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. The rocket's debut launch is scheduled for Feb. 6, 2018.]

SpaceX's first Falcon Heavy rocket stands atop Launch Pad 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. The rocket's debut launch is scheduled for Feb. 6, 2018. (Image credit: SpaceX)
SpaceX's Falcon Heavy booster is the most powerful rocket since NASA's Saturn V moon rocket. Its first stage consists of three Falcon 9 cores that are designed to return to Earth after launch much like the company's solo Falcon 9 flights.

The heavy-lift rocket stands 230 feet tall (70 meters) and is designed to launch payloads of up to 119,000 lbs. (57 metric tons) into space. It can carry twice the load of its nearest rival: the Delta IV Heavy built by the United Launch Alliance.

For its debut flight, the Falcon Heavy is carrying Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster into space. Musk has said the launch, if successful, will deliver the Roadster into a heliocentric orbit that will eventually send the midnight-cherry-red electric car by Mars.

However, Musk has repeatedly attempted to lower expectations for the Falcon Heavy's first flight, saying there is a fair chance the launch could fail.

"There's a lot that could go wrong there," Musk said last year. "I encourage people to come down to the Cape to see the first Falcon Heavy mission; it's guaranteed to be exciting."

And Musk isn't alone in promising excitement. The Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex (KSCVC), which offers tickets to view launches from Florida's Space Coast, unveiled a series of Falcon Heavy launch viewing packages on Thursday (Jan. 25).

Those launch viewing packages range in price from $35 per person (for simple viewing access and parking) to the already-sold-out $195 per person "Feel the Heat" package, which offers two-day admission to the KSC Visitor Complex, transportation to a viewing area at the complex's Apollo/Saturn V Center, a trip to the Shuttle Landing Facility, a catered meal, SpaceX hat and other amenities.

"When SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy lifts off from Kennedy Space Center's famed Pad 39A, the same launchpad from which Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong set course for the moon on Apollo 11 in 1969, a new kind of history will be made," KSCVC representatives said in the announcement.

SpaceX's Falcon Heavy test flight will come one week after the company's next mission. That flight will launch a Falcon 9 rocket carrying the GovSat-1 communications satellite from Space Launch Complex-40 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

_Email Tariq Malik at tmalik@space.com or follow him_ _@tariqjmalik_ _and_ _Google+.__ Follow us_ _@Spacedotcom__,_ _Facebook__ and_ _Google+__. Original article on_ _Space.com._

_Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com._

question: Summarize the main news event.

answer: The main news event is the first launch of SpaceX's new giant rocket, the Falcon Heavy, on Feb. 6. The rocket will lift off from the historic Launch Pad 39A at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida.

critique: The answer could provide more details on the main news event.

critique: The answer should mention that the Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket since NASA's Saturn V moon rocket.

critique: The answer should mention what the rocket is carrying.

question: What does the text have to say about the traits of the rocket?

answer: It is either a handmade or a manufacturer proof. It is the most powerful rocket after NASA's Saturn V moon rocket. It is the tallest rocket ever made and it is designed to fail in an unpredictable manner.

critique: The text does not say anything about the rocket being handmade or manufacturer proof, so this should be omitted.

critique: This is false. The text does not say anything about the traits of the rocket being handmade or manufacturer proof.

critique: The article doesn't state and doesn't imply that the Falcon Heavy is a handmade or a manufacturer proof.

critique: The text does not say anything about the rocket being handmade or manufacturer proof.

critique: The Falcon Heavy is not designed to fail in an unpredictable manner.

question: Summarize everything Elon Musk said.

answer: Elon Musk said that SpaceX will attempt the first launch of its new giant rocket, the Falcon Heavy, on February 6. The mission will lift off from the historic Launch Pad 39A at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. He also said that the mission may lift off during a three-hour launch window that opens at 1:30 p.m. EST. He has repeatedly attempted to lower expectations for the Falcon Heavy's first flight, saying there is a fair chance the launch could fail.

critique: The launch window is not relevant to the question.

critique: It's omitted that the mission is carrying Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster into space.

critique: The answer should mention that the mission is carrying Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster.

critique: The Falcon Heavy's first launch window is not explicitly stated as 1:30 p.m. EST.

critique: "He also said that the mission may lift off during a three-hour launch window that opens at 1:30 p.m. EST." - this is incorrect. Musk never said this.

critique: The launch window is not said to be three hours.

critique: It is omitted that the Falcon Heavy's first flight will carry Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster into space.

question: Summarize the negative reactions to the launch.

answer: No answer

critique: The article does not mention any negative reactions to the launch.

critique: The article mentioned that Musk has repeatedly tried to lower expectations. Celebratory expectations coincide with the reported reactions.


text:
The FBI's counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump campaign officials had improper contacts with Russia was triggered by information the bureau obtained about George PapadopoulosGeorge Demetrios PapadopoulosFlynn spurs questions of who Trump might pardon next Not treason, not a crime — but definitely a gross abuse of power Tale of two FBI cases: Clinton got warned, Trump got investigated MORE, a former adviser to the campaign, according to the memo released Friday by House Intelligence Committee Republicans.

Allies of President Trump[]Donald TrumpBiden and Harris named Time's 2020 'Person of the Year' US to sanction Turkey over Russian defense system: report Federal government executes Brandon Bernard despite last-minute appeals MORE have claimed the Russia probe began with the so-called Steele dossier that was paid for in part by Hillary Clinton[]Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonBette Middler blasts McConnell: 'How did he win with an 18% approval rating?' Hillary Clinton: Republicans that 'humor' Trump election claims 'have no spines' Trump leaves mixed legacy on veterans affairs MORE and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). That would mean the Russia investigation itself — and by extension, special counsel Robert Mueller[]Robert (Bob) MuellerBarr taps attorney investigating Russia probe origins as special counsel CNN's Toobin warns McCabe is in 'perilous condition' with emboldened Trump CNN anchor rips Trump over Stone while evoking Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting MORE’s probe — was launched from political opposition research.

But the memo states that FBI agent Pete Strzok opened the investigation in July 2016 based on "information" about Papadapoulos, rather than the dossier.

The New York Times has previously reported that Papadapoulos bragged to an Australian diplomat that the Russians had damaging information on Clinton before the hack of the DNC became publicly known. The Australian government tipped off the FBI to what Papadapoulos had said, according to the Times.

Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is cooperating with special counsel Mueller’s investigation.

Still, the revelation that Strzok, who sent text messages disparaging Trump, launched the original investigation into the Trump campaign will further fuel debate over political bias at the FBI.

Strzok and Lisa Page, who is a lawyer at the FBI, exchanged private text messages during the campaign that were disparaging of Trump. Strzok and Page, who were having an affair, were both on Mueller’s special counsel team at one point before being reassigned last year

Strzok was also a central figure in the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email arrangement. Republicans, citing text messages between Strzok and Lisa Page, have said the FBI determined ahead of time to give Clinton an election year pass.

The memo released by Republicans on Friday, which was authored by staffers for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes[]Devin Gerald NunesBiden's Cabinet a battleground for future GOP White House hopefuls Overnight Defense: Trump loyalist to lead Pentagon transition | Democrats ask VA for vaccine distribution plan | Biden to get classified intel reports Ex-Nunes aide linked to Biden conspiracy theories will lead Pentagon transition MORE (R-Calif.), also criticizes the FBI’s use of the Steele dossier in a warrant application.

After the counterintelligence investigation began, the memo states, the FBI used the Steele dossier, in part, to obtain surveillance warrants for Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who is not related to Lisa Page.

Then-FBI Director James Comey[]James Brien ComeyTrump's self-pardon would clash with his impeachment The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Mastercard - Dem leaders back smaller COVID-19 relief bill as pandemic escalates Trump blasts special counsel Durham for moving too slowly MORE sought and received a warrant to spy on Carter Page in October 2016, the document states.

The surveillance applications typically involve several layers of authentication. Justice Department lawyers must show probable cause that the target of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant is acting as an agent of a foreign power.

The memo asserts that the FBI hid details about the origins of the dossier from the surveillance court. The memo also states that there is “not evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between [Carter] Page and Papadopoulos.”

question: What exactly made the FBI convinced of foreign interference in the United States' 2016 election?

answer: The claim has always remained uncertain: even the FISA application is described as an argument based on probabilities.

text: It is omitted that the bureau obtained information about George PapadopoulosGeorge Demetrios PapadopoulosFlynn which raises the question of Trump's abuse of power.

question: Prior to obtaining any information from the Australian government, was the FBI ever planning to investigate any Russian threat to the election?

answer: It would seem there was no investigation until the Australian government informed CIA about Papadopoulos's boast.

critique: The Australian government didn't inform the CIA about Papadopoulos's boast.

text: It is incorrect that the Australian government informed CIA, they informed FBI.

question: What there any personal vendetta involved in the investigation of the Trump campaign and its links with Russia?

answer: No answer

critique: The article states that Strzok and Page exchanged private text messages during the campaign that were disparaging of Trump. Strzok and Page, who were having an affair, were both on Mueller’s special counsel team at one point before being reassigned last year.

question: Did the FBI really believe Trump would pardon himself?

answer: Presumably, Lynn J. suggests that Strzok could have thought Trump might pardon himself to protect himself, because there is evidence he said he would do something like this.


text:
“Where were you last night?” Max peered over my Economics textbook. He had a look of anticipation, as if he was waiting for some pain relieving gossip.

“I was home,” I responded innocently before he rolled his eyes at me. “Now, don’t bother me, I’m trying to focus.” Although normally I would use anything to distract me from school, I wasn’t about to involve Max in last night’s mess.

“Are you expecting me to believe you weren’t at Nina’s party?” He raised his eyebrows at me. I didn’t know what I was expecting. Frankly, no expectation in the world would have prepared me well enough. But I wanted to be there for Nina like she had for me. Perhaps I couldn’t fix her parent’s divorce, but I could at least attend her house party. Especially after her break up with Todd, the leather jacket douche that called her “babe” so much I would wonder if he knew her real name.

“I promise you’ll have a great time,” Nina had told me. And at first, I really did. There is something comforting about the stagnant smell of beer penetrating every fiber of clothing and hair follicle. Something nostalgic about repetitive rap songs preaching about the wonders of big asses.

Everything seemed normal at first. The music was pounding loudly and the dim lights carried shadows across the cramped living room. I could feel the air thickening.

Minutes before terror, I was standing unnoticed next to a group of girls I recognized.

“Someone told me her dad was abusive,” I heard one say with wide eyes.

“Yeah, apparently the neighbors called the cops on them,” another responded.

“Well, I wouldn’t point fingers just yet. Nina’s mom’s a bitch. Maybe she deserved it,” a brunette shrugged and took a sip of her drink right before our eyes met. Her face flared red as she realized her words had been overhead. I clenched my fists in rage.

“How about you all mind your own–”. My response was cut short by a piercing scream. I quickly stood up in alert. The room became still. The music stopped and those still standing looked at one another with puzzled looks. The source was nowhere to be seen. It came again, this time along with a cry. I recognized Nina immediately. I pushed my way across the living room and ran up the stairs before barging into Nina’s bedroom.

I noticed him first. His leather jacket shimmered in the moonlight as he stood tall and angry. A millisecond later, I spotted Nina on the floor. Hands covering her face in defense. The lack of light in the room didn’t stop the fierceness of her blood as it dripped down her temple and into her hair.

I stood still. My brain called in fear but my body made no response. Not even when Todd walked passed me, into the hallway and shut the door behind him.

Nina remained on the floor. She held herself and rocked back and forth, letting silent cries out into the thick air.

“Don’t tell anyone.” She whispered.

&#x200B;

&#x200B;

“Hello?” Max snapped at me. “Are you going to tell me or not?” I stared at him blankly as the vivid flashbacks flew through my head. My heart stung in bitterness as I recognized that all I wanted to do was say it. To write it out in sharpie on all student lockers.

Nina’s bloody face burned in my head. “There’s nothing to tell.”

title: [RF] Last Night Leftovers

question: What does the passage say about Todd?

answer: Todd is Nina's ex-boyfriend. After months of immersing himself in his relationship with Nina, he left her the day before he landed her a nice, solid punch to the face.

critique: The response is inaccurate. Todd did not punch Nina.

critique: Todd is not Nina's ex-boyfriend. He is her ex-boyfriend.

critique: Heroine Nina's full name, Todd's punching reflex, or the fact that he left Nina prior to the ex would be better mentions.

text:
The context of this part is wrong: "After months of immersing himself in his relationship with Nina, he left her the day before he landed her a nice, solid punch to the face."

The duration of Todd and Nina's relationship was not stated, but they did break up. However, it was not specified who broke up with whom. Lastly, it is not stated that they broke up the day before the party.

question: What does the passage say about Nina's parents?

answer: Nina was having a party after her parents' divorce. Nina's father is abusive and he got in a fight with the police once.

critique: Nina's father is never mentioned as abusive.

critique: The response inaccurately mentions that Nina's father got in a fight with the police.

critique: This is not likely and should be omitted.

critique: The response contains inaccurate information.

question: What does the passage say about domestic abuse?

answer: No answer

critique: The answer should mention the gossip about Nina's family.

critique: The response misses to mention that the story mentions domestic abuse.

text: The question is asking what the passage specifically states about domestic abuse. In this case, there are two instances: one is a circulating rumor about Nina's father being abusive to a point where the police have been called. The passage states that these kinds of rumors can spread and can be hurtful towards the people in the rumor and their friends and family. The second is Todd who has physically hurt Nina. The passage shows that people are not able to easily react to the situation even when knowing the truth (as shown by the behavior of the narrator), and that even the victim will choose to hide the situation and the abuser is rarely remorseful of the pain they cause.

question: What does the passage say about prom?

answer: No answer

critique: There is no mention of prom in the text.


question: Summarize the main news event.

answer: This article reports on the upcoming first launch of SpaceX's new giant rocket, the Falcon Heavy, on February 6.

critique: The answer should mention the destination of the rocket.

critique: SpaceX and the Falcon Heavy are reversed.

critique: The answer could be clearer in its pronoun use.

critique: The answer should mention the Falcon Heavy's specifications.

question: What does the text have to say about the traits of the rocket?

answer: The rocket is the most powerful rocket since NASA's Saturn V moon rocket. It has three Falcon 9 cores that are designed to return to earth after launch. The rocket stands 230 feet tall and is designed to launch payloads of up to 119,000 lbs. into space.

critique: Falcon Heavy is not described as a "rocket" with explicit feminine consonant pronunciation

critique: The answer could mention that the rocket is the first of its kind.

critique: The answer could mention the payload it can carry.

critique: Doesn't mention that it can carry twice the load of its nearest rival.

question: Summarize everything Elon Musk said.

answer: Elon Musk said that SpaceX will attempt the first launch of its new giant rocket, the Falcon Heavy, on Feb. 6. The rocket will lift off from the historic Launch Pad 39A at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Musk said that the mission may lift off during a three-hour launch window that opens at 1:30 p.m. EST. He also said that there is a fair chance the launch could fail.

critique: The answer should mention that the rocket is carrying Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster.

critique: The answer should mention that Musk is the CEO of SpaceX.

critique: The answer should mention that the rocket is carrying his Tesla Roadster into space.

critique: The answer should mention that Musk said the launch will carry his Tesla Roadster.

critique: The launch window is not said to be three hours.

critique: "The rocket" - replace with "SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket"

critique: The mission details are not directly attributed to Musk

critique: The launch window is not a direct quote from Musk.

question: Summarize the negative reactions to the launch.

answer: No answer

critique:
Quotes from text:
"""However, Musk has repeatedly attempted to lower expectations for the Falcon Heavy's first flight, saying there is a fair chance the launch could fail."""

critique: The article does not mention any negative reactions to the launch.


text:
Published on

Thursday, August 01, 2019

by

[President Donald Trump shakes hands with Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)]

The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed 13 of President Donald Trump's lifetime judicial nominees this week, a major victory in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's years-long effort to reshape the nation's courts and drag them further to the right for decades to come.

The breakneck speed with which McConnell has ushered young—and often unqualified—right-wing judges through the Senate confirmation process "should send shockwaves across the nation," the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights tweeted Wednesday.

"Republicans are counting on these judges to dismantle reproductive rights, marriage equality, and the separation of church and state, and also to shred the New Deal and regulations that protect people from corporate power."
—Marge Baker, People for the American Way

But the rapid confirmation of Trump's judicial picks this week has largely flown under the radar as America's cable networks and newspapers have been dominated by coverage of the 2020 Democratic presidential debates.

Kristine Lucius, executive vice president for policy and government affairs at the Leadership Conference, issued a statement singling out Texas district court nominees Jeffrey Brown and Brantley Starr, who she said are "hostile to voting rights, LGBTQ equality, reproductive rights, and immigrant rights."

"Additionally, neither one would even state that the bedrock civil rights decision _Brown v. Board of Education_ was correctly decided," said Lucius, referring to the 1954 Supreme Court decision that ruled racial segregation of public schools unconstitutional.

Brown and Starr were just two of seven Trump judicial picks confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday.

"Senate Republicans will stop at nothing to stack the courts with partisan judges who will push their radical agenda through at any cost," Lucius said. "In doing so, they are not only degrading our courts, but also endangering our democracy."

It is unclear whether McConnell will succeed in pushing through all 19 of the judges he set out to confirm before the Senate breaks for recess at the end of the week, but progressives said the Kentucky Republican nevertheless did a lot of damage in just a few days—without much resistance from the Democratic Party.

  Yesterday, the Senate confirmed one of these lifetime judicial picks who wouldn't say #BrownvBoard was correctly decided 87-1. (Thanks @SenBlumenthal!)

  Today, Democrats let another be confirmed by voice vote--not even bothering to insist on a roll-call vote.

  SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

  Never Miss a Beat.

  GET OUR BEST DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

  Where is the floor? https://t.co/xmC5ICzZ7k

  — Christopher Kang (@cdkang76) July 31, 2019

Marge Baker, executive vice president of progressive advocacy group People for the American Way, said in a statement Thursday that the "judges confirmed by the Senate this week include a number of alarming, narrow-minded elitists—including but not limited to nine nominees who would not say that they agreed with the Supreme Court's ruling in _Brown v. Board of Education_."

"Republicans are counting on these judges to dismantle reproductive rights, marriage equality, and the separation of church and state," said Baker, "and also to shred the New Deal and regulations that protect people from corporate power."

McConnell and Trump's ongoing transformation of the nation's judiciary received very little attention during the two Democratic presidential debates this week.

In an interview on _MSNBC_ Thursday, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who was on the debate stage in Detroit Wednesday night, accused Senate Democrats of not doing everything in their power to stop Trump's judicial picks because they want to leave town for August recess.

"They've approved his judge selections so they can go on recess," said Inslee.

"These are lifetime appointments," Inslee added. "Stopping Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump from putting these conservative judges on the bench is more important than their vacation, frankly."

  Gov. Inslee hits Senate Dems for supporting Trump judges: "We have to stop giving him a pass. They've approved his judge selections so they can go on recess. These are lifetime appointments ... It's more important than their vacation, frankly." pic.twitter.com/I0mloQB3sz

  — Demand Justice (@WeDemandJustice) August 1, 2019

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. COMMON DREAMS IS NOT YOUR NORMAL NEWS SITE. WE DON'T SURVIVE ON CLICKS. WE DON'T WANT ADVERTISING DOLLARS. WE WANT THE WORLD TO BE A BETTER PLACE. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. WITHOUT YOUR SUPPORT WE SIMPLY DON'T EXIST.

PLEASE SELECT A DONATION METHOD:

question: Summarize the main news event.

answer: The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed 13 of President Donald Trump's lifetime judicial nominees this week, a major victory in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's years-long effort to reshape the nation's courts and drag them further to the right for decades to come.

critique: McConnell tried to usher 19 judges through, not 13

critique: The answer should mention the opposition to the nominations.

critique: The answer should mention the concerns about the nominees.

critique: It is omitted that the Democrats are criticising the Republicans for this.

critique: The answer could include some details about the content of the article.

critique: The answer should mention the Democratic response.

question: Summarize the historical context around Brown v. Board of Education.

answer: Brown v. Board of Education was a 1954 Supreme Court decision that ruled racial segregation of public schools unconstitutional.

critique: It would be helpful to include a description of the legal context in which Brown v. Board of Education was made

critique: The answer should include the year of the decision.

critique: The answer should mention that the decision was made in 1954.

critique: "Brown v. Board of Education" - add a hyphen.

critique: The answer should mention that Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark case.

critique: The answer should mention that the decision was handed down in 1954.

critique: "Brown v. Board of Education" is not a decision but a case.

question: Summarize the views of the opposing sides.

answer: One side believes that Trump and McConnell are trying to stack the courts with right-wing and unqualified judges who will use their positions to further push through the Republican agenda. The other side believes that Democrats aren't doing enough to stop Trump's judicial picks.

critique: "The other side believes that Democrats aren't doing enough to stop Trump's judicial picks." - this is incorrect. The other side believes that Senate Democrats are not doing enough to stop Trump's judicial picks.

critique: "The other side" is an odd way to phrase it. "Progressives" would be more accurate

critique: The answer should mention the two specific judges highlighted by the article.

critique: The answer should mention the views of the Democrats.

critique: Add the third view that McConnell is pushing through Trump's judicial picks

critique: "The other side believes that Democrats aren't doing enough to stop Trump's judicial picks." - this is inaccurate. It's the other way around. Democrats are trying to stop Trump's judicial picks, but aren't doing enough to stop them.

text: The two sides described in the answer are the same group of progressive commenters; it would be more accurate to identify "the Republican agenda" as the opposing side.

question: Summarize the role of Kristine Lucius in the news.

answer: Kristine Lucius is the executive vice president for policy and government affairs at the Leadership Conference. She singles out Texas district court nominees Jeffrey Brown and Brantley Starr, who she says are "hostile to voting rights, LGBTQ equality, reproductive rights, and immigrant rights." She also singles out two other nominees. She wants these judges to be stopped.

critique: The answer should mention that her comments are in response to the rapid confirmation of Trump's judicial picks.

critique: The two other nominees she singles out aren't mentioned.

critique: The answer should mention that the article is about the Republican-controlled Senate confirming Trump's judicial nominees.

critique: The answer should mention that Lucius is quoted in the article.

critique: It is omitted that Lucius criticizes the Republican Senators for confirming the nominees despite their views.

critique: The answer is a bit unclear. It should be more specific about what Lucius is trying to do.

text: Remove the third sentence, it's repetitive and unnecessary.