Your task is to extract the thesis of an opinionated news article by selecting some of its text segments. The thesis is a summarization of what the author wants to persuade the reader of. Your answer should consist of segments of the given text. Note that you are not allowed to combine different sentences.

Input: Consider Input: Ferguson unrest: Make protesters pay for riot damage. No matter whose side you are on in the upheaval following the killing of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, everyone should agree on the profound sadness of it all: sadness that an 18-year-old boy-man walked a path that led to his destruction; sadness that a police officer felt the need to defend himself by shooting another human being; sadness over the rioting and looting that followed a grand jury's decision not to indict Officer Wilson; and for some, sadness that Wilson was not indicted . Much of the sadness was encapsulated in a sound bite I saw on one TV network . An African-American business owner, surveying the destruction of his store, plaintively asked,"How am I going to feed my kids?" I have an answer and it is one that should be applied to anyone convicted of riotous behavior, destruction of property and looting . It's called restitution . Restitution is an Old Testament concept instituted to remind people that when one harms another person, or steals or destroys property, someone else suffers and deserves reimbursement . It says the state is less a debtor than the victim of a crime . Restitution can also instill true moral guilt in a person , which can lead to genuine repentance and a decision by the perpetrator to make different choices leading to a better life . As the authorities in Ferguson examine videos that show the faces of many of the rioters and looters, charges will undoubtedly be filed . If convicted , the perpetrators should be forced to pay for the damage they caused . If they have jobs , their paychecks should be garnished . If they are on welfare , those checks should be forwarded to the businesses they destroyed . If they receive food-purchasing assistance , that assistance should be withdrawn . This should be the practice going forward . Those who destroy their communities will be required to pay back those harmed by their hooliganism and forfeit any government benefits they receive . This might require legislation , but politicians should have the public's support . A close relative of restitution is shaming . The convicted should be brought before those harmed by their behavior and publicly shamed . No one seems to be ashamed of anything nowadays , but shaming might help prevent future violence . Rioters and looters who are black could be shamed by law-abiding African-Americans . They can be asked,"Is this why Dr  Martin Luther King Jr  marched and went to prison? Is this why he paid the ultimate price? Would he and other civil rights leaders dating back to Frederick Douglass be proud of your behavior today? Don't you owe them something better than this?" Perhaps if people realize that their destructive behavior will cost them something, they think might twice about harming others and robbing them of a living . People from around the country are reportedly donating money to help those whose businesses were destroyed . That again demonstrates the generosity of Americans of all races and backgrounds . While donations will help, along with insurance , if it covers damage caused by violent protesters , the lawbreakers should still be required to take responsibility for their actions . In addition to whatever legal penalties might result, restitution and shaming should be part of the punishment . We've gotten away from personal responsibility and accountability, preferring instead to cast lawbreakers as "victims," when the true victims are often ignored . Too often many blame others for their circumstances . Too often many feel entitled to what others have achieved through hard work and dedication . Too often too many feel justified in taking and destroying the property of others instead of working and building for themselves . If they don't feel ashamed , they should .

Output: It's called restitution


Input: Consider Input: The generational change in US-Cuba relations. The announcement of a new era of relations between the United States and Cuba came as a surprise to many who follow and study the relationship between the two rivals . The old guard of Cuban exiles, led by Senator Marco Rubio, predictably reacted with their usual anger . By contrast, many second generation Cuban Americans and advocates reacted differently - with optimism and hope for change . It is important to understand those reactions to the recent announcement as part of a broader evolution towards new relations between the US and Cuba over 20 years in the making, following fundamental security, economic, and political changes . The end of the Cold War in 1989 spelled change for Latin America, just as it did for the world . For Cuba, it meant the loss of its biggest sponsor , which plunged the island into a five-year economic tailspin, contracted its GDP by 30 to 45 percent, and precipitated a number of changes to Cuban policy and law . Those reforms have accelerated throughout the last decade, including an ongoing plan to unify the island's dual currency . Cuba has had no choice but to liberalise portions of its economy and European countries have been able to take advantage of those opportunities . In the last two decades, a Cuban economy starved for growth has looked overseas and seen the island more willing to come to agreement regarding foreign presence . The implications of the fall of the Soviet Union were not only economic in nature, but also resulted in a shift in US policy towards Latin America more broadly . In the 20-plus years since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the US has tolerated, or even openly collaborated with, leftist regimes in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Honduras that in another era would have been deliberately undermined, or perhaps overthrown, as in the cases of Panama, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua . The strategic and military calculus of our relationship with Cuba has fundamentally changed . Presidents and Congress no longer have the blanket justification of Cuba as a military threat as they did during the Cold War . For Cuban exiles, 1989 was not so much a watershed moment as an opportunity to continue applying pressure to a failing regime . The Cuban-American lobby continued to promote isolationism , believing that this post-Soviet moment was finally the chance to see a democratic counterrevolution on the island . This belief that isolation would force the collapse of Castro regime restricted policy responses available to the US government and presidential administrations . Changes in the global economic and political relationship with Cuba did not affect US policy and Cuba, for the most part, was excluded from the more moderate and tolerant US foreign policy towards Latin America . Republican presidents and legislators proved to be more punitive towards the island - particularly given their reliance on the Cuban-American lobby for monetary and electoral support in south Florida . Despite a cooling in relations during the late 1990s, due to the shooting down of the two US planes flown by "Brothers to the Rescue", President Bill Clinton eased restrictions on humanitarian aid, broadened the ability to send remittances, increased allowable person-to-person interactions, and resumed direct flights between the countries . President Clinton's actions were part of a broader government strategy of "constructive engagement" , in which the US would actively engage with the Cuban people, but maintain pressure on the government . The new millennium did not bring significant changes in relations as, true to Republican form, President George W Bush maintained the status quo of "constructive engagement" . If anything , his administration took a harder line, at times including Cuba in the same paragraph as the "Axis of Evil" . However , even as President Bush, Senator Marco Rubio, and conservative Cuban- American legislators continued to push a hard line on Cuba , the profile of the average Cuban American changed . The stereotypical conservative Cuban - still upset, and rightfully so, over the nationalisation of private property and human rights abuses during the revolution - still attempts to dominate political discourse . But a new face of the Cuban American has emerged - young, second-generation children have come of age with the desire to see for themselves the homeland that they have only heard about in stories ; and new, post-1989 migrants, who are economic rather than political refugees, have closer personal ties to the island . The election of President Obama and the nomination of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State signalled a new era with a renewed focus on diplomacy . Four months after taking office, the administration quietly continued to liberalise relations between the US and Cuba . However ,  Alan Gross' imprisonment in 2009 gave opportunity for the age-old arguments against Cuba to resurface , with the old guard claiming that nothing had changed and seeing it as the latest example of the long history of Cuban aggression . I do not dispute the fact that the Castro brothers have been harsh dictators and that their system of government has deeply damaged multiple generations of Cubans, nor do I dispute that regime change should still be a goal of US policy . However as my analysis has shown, the rest of the story has changed . Cuba's economy continues to search for growth , and the government is actively looking outside the country for investment . Long gone are the existential security threats that came from the island during the Cold War . Moreover ,  this reflects the changing opinions of Cuban Americans . The new modes of engagement announced by Obama on December 17 were not an acknowledgement of defeat, but an effort for a new way forward that reflects those changes . December 17 will no doubt be an important moment in the lives of Cubans and Cuban Americans , but it deserves more analysis than the knee-jerk reactions on the front pages of newspapers and talk shows in the US . Obama should be commended for basing policy on facts rather than emotions . The US must continue to actively engage with the island, lest we lose the opportunity to influence a neighbour that is gradually rejoining the regional and world economy and political order .

Output: The announcement of a new era of relations between the United States and Cuba came as a surprise to many who follow and study the relationship between the two rivals


Input: Consider Input: Charlie Hebdo: 'Us or them'. In the face of terrible deaths, at a time when we are so destructively polarised , this must be said bold and up front and repeatedly : No cartoonist deserves to be killed, ever . No innocent person shopping for kosher food deserves to be terrorised and murdered , either . All of those tragic deaths in France last week, including those of a policeman and policewoman, and numbering 17 in total, all of them are horrendous and incomprehensible . In the face of this terrible killing spree in France, at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and then at a kosher supermarket, the overwhelming reaction is revulsion . But at the same time, there's a need to respond in other ways as well, to frame a discussion that can prevent this tragedy leading to even more tragedies, or being spun out to lash out at other innocent people . And here is the trouble with the backlash that has already begun, and the demands that have being made in the name of "solidarity" . France today stages a unity march, an attempt to help heal a wounded nation, amidst a much wider discussion of the need to stand together in the face of terror . But within that discussion, there has been a distinct fundamentalism - for example, in the insistence that to support Charlie Hedbo's right to publish, we must reprint and replicate their work . It's an unnecessary conflation of two things: support for the right to do something and actually doing the thing . It should, of course, be possible to express disgust at the murders fully, without having to endorse certain types of offensiveness . And the French magazine, while broad-spectrum in its religious targets, has undeniably focused its gaze on France's Muslim minority in a racist manner, in recent years . There is, for media, a responsibility (the abrogation of which clearly does not invite murder) to not be tone deaf about the environments we live in: about ignored hierarchies of control; about powerless minorities and colonial heritage and migration and foreign policy; about how things feel when you are stigmatised, marginalised and scapegoated; about what it's like when you don't have a voice or much representation in the mainstream ; and when the majority culture insists that equality and liberty await all those who just learn to be more like the majority . If we don't create the space to say these things without casting those that do so as fanatical supporters of murder , then what is this limitless freedom of expression we keep insisting we are firmly on the side of? The demand that we all respond in a mass, uniform way also makes a basic error about how unity works - which is to forget that it can only survive if there are spaces between us ; solidarity and common ground take hold because of the existence of a spectrum in thought and experience, and not despite these things . Deadly terrorism seeks to stamp out the possibility of difference  - which is why, in condemning outright those atrocities in France, we need also to keep insisting on and cherishing our diversity . Meanwhile, equally fundamentalist is the predictable casting of blame at Muslims and their "backward" culture, painting this as a "clash of civilisations" and insisting that all Muslims repeatedly apologise for the slaughters in France . The now routine insistence that all Muslims apologise for all such atrocities has spawned a spoof Muslim iCondemn phone app for such eventualities - a curious development , since we have been led to believe that Muslims don't actually have a sense of humour . 'Civilised v barbarian' . The ridiculous "civilised v barbarian" argument has been skilfully taken apart by others - its false premises, hypocrisy and misguided superiority complex rigorously deconstructed . But there's grave danger in this sort of "us or them" thinking - not just in the physical attacks on mosques and Muslims in France , which have already begun and which are obviously bad enough . The danger in blaming Muslims for such atrocities is that we shirk any responsibility . And the harsh reality is that the French killings, just like previous terror atrocities in Britain, just like the European self-proclaimed jihadists that go and fight for the death cult Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant(ISIL), are all homegrown . We - not just Muslim society, but our societies - are accountable . We, not just the fanatics that recruit to and commit mindless terror, are bound up in the causes and the context in a way that makes it not just insulting but actively counterproductive to single out Muslims as bearing sole responsibility both for the crimes and for their prevention . If we don't own this terrible reality collectively , we won't be able to find a way out of it collectively , either - and that means we won't be able to find a way out of it at all .


Output: All of those tragic deaths in France last week, including those of a policeman and policewoman, and numbering 17 in total, all of them are horrendous and incomprehensible But there's grave danger in this sort of "us or them" thinking - not just in the physical attacks on mosques and Muslims in France