Categorize the comment on the basis of threat. If the comment is threatening output Yes, otherwise output No.

Q: Gasp! Shock! Oh my! Someone in a position of authority was having an affair with a subordinate?! What?! She lied about it?! This is scandalous! Unheard of!! Usually, often, too frequently it's some man, senator, congressman, president having sex with an underling and lying about it. She resigned. Stop wasting taxpayer money on this.

A: Yes
****
Q: From their own website:  The 1976 state law establishing the Permanent Fund (AS 37.13), states that the Fund was created:
to provide a means of conserving a portion of the state's revenue from mineral resources to benefit all generations of Alaskans
to maintain safety of principal while maximizing total return
to be a savings device managed to allow maximum use of disposable income for purposes designated by law.

I think that's pretty clear insofar as it's purpose.    To conserve for the benefit of all generations of Alaskans.    Using the principal to produce earning to fund government (like Norway did for example) is certainly one way the fund, using a POMV payment model, would provide benefit to all generations of Alaskan's, not just the individuals who happen to live in Alaska for a year, then get a dividend that second year.

A: Yes
****
Q: Jim, again you fail miserably at reading comprehension. This is cut from the very site that you wave as some sort of magic wand:

Third, severance taxes also pose another problem in that they are generally considered by economist to be fully passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. As a result, much of the severance tax burden is actually “exported” to the other 49 states. The tax burden analysis published by the Tax Foundation adjusts for this impact and ranks Alaska as the lowest in the country with a tax burden of 7 percent. - See more at: http://www.keypolicydata.com/blog-archives/2015/01/severance-taxes-fuel-alaskas-highest-nation-tax-burden-2013/#sthash.As1HM6EG.dpuf

A:
Yes
****