Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Paragraph: “Independents need to know they can invest their vote in the Democratic Party,” Carter said Tuesday during his annual report at his post-presidential center and library in Atlanta, where he offered caution about the political consequences should Democrats “move to a very liberal program, like universal health care.” That’s delicate — and, Carter admitted, even contradictory — advice coming from the 93-year-old former president, and it underscores the complicated political calculations for Democrats as they prepare for the November midterms and look ahead to the 2020 presidential election. “Rosie and I voted for Bernie Sanders in the past,” Carter noted. He was referring to his wife, Rosalynn, and their support for the Vermont senator, an independent who identifies as a democratic socialist, over establishment favorite Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. At another point, he pointed to California’s environmental policies — limits on carbon emissions, stiffer fuel-efficiency standards — as the model for combating climate change. Still, Carter stressed, Democrats nationally must “appeal to independents” who are souring on the current administration. Trump’s job approval rating, according to Gallup, has dipped to 40 percent, mostly because of declining support among independents. Carter alluded to arguments from self-identified progressives that Democrats will sacrifice votes on the left if they don’t embrace the liberal base: “I don’t think any Democrat is going to vote against a Democratic nominee,” and he insisted that he’s not asking the left to sacrifice its goals, only to see that winning elections is necessary to accomplish any of them. There is some historical irony in Carter’s analysis. He came to the White House in 1976 from the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, and he clashed with party liberals, drawing a spirited primary challenge in 1980 from Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy. Carter prevailed, but he was wounded, abandoned by Kennedy’s most liberal supporters and unable to win over independents who helped deliver a landslide for Republican Ronald Reagan. Carter’s latest handicapping comes near the conclusion of a midterm primary season that has seen Democratic primary voters move the party to the left. In some states and districts, that means nominating full-throated advocates of single-payer health care, a $15 minimum wage and abolishing or at least overhauling the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. In other races, it means nominees who back more cautious moves to the left, such as background checks before certain gun purchases, a “public option” health insurance plan to compete alongside private insurance policies, step raises for the minimum wage and an immigration overhaul that offers legal status to some immigrants in the country illegally. Carter did not delve into those distinctions, instead offering a sweeping condemnation of his latest successor to remind Democrats of the stakes. He denounced the administration’s latest environmental policy proposal to make it easier for energy companies to release methane gas that contributes to climate change. He singled out Trump’s policy of separating immigrant families at the border, including those seeking asylum. “America is inherently committed to human rights, and I think in the future we will let that prevail,” Carter said, “but for the next two years, I can’t predict the imprisoned children are going to be any better off — unfortunately.” Carter has previously criticized Trump for his repeated falsehoods, and he’s chided Trump for his hardline support for Israel over Palestinians. Yet Carter has found common ground with Trump on other foreign policy fronts, and did so again Tuesday. While avoiding any mention of the special counsel’s investigation into whether Trump’s presidential campaign coordinated with Russia in the 2016 U.S. election, Carter said he has engaged for years with Russian President Vladimir Putin concerning the ongoing Syrian civil war. “I have his email address,” Carter said, adding that he and Putin share the same Russian river as their favorite spot for salmon fishing. That friendship, Carter said, means when Russia and other nations hold multilateral talks about the Syrian conflict, “Quite often they invite the Carter Center. ... They do not invite the U.S. government.” Carter also praised Trump for meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Carter repeated his frustrations with the last Democratic president, Barack Obama, for not engaging more directly with the insular Asian nation. Carter said he’s not sure Trump has made real progress yet with North Korea, but he endorsed calls for the U.S. to formally declare an end to the Korean War and normalize relations with Pyongyang. “Let them be part of the community of nations,” he said. “I think that would be enough in itself to bring an end to the nuclear program in North Korea.” ___ Follow Barrow on Twitter at https://twitter.com/BillBarrowAP Claim: Jimmy Carter: To beat Trump, Dems cannot scare off moderates.
Former President Jimmy Carter sees little hope for the U.S. to change its human rights and environmental policies as long as Donald Trump is in the White House, but he has a warning for his fellow Democrats looking to oust the current administration: Don’t go too far to the left.

Paragraph: He did not spell out why he expected no corresponding EU moves. But in a statement, his agency said a key finding in its latest annual report was a “marked rise in the potency and purity of Europe’s most commonly used illicit drugs, fuelling concerns for the health of users who, wittingly or unwittingly, may be consuming stronger products”. It also pointed out an increase in the numbers of cannabis-related health emergencies in Europe between 2008 and 2012. Gotz told a briefing arranged to present the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction’s report: “In Europe I do not know any government, or parliamentary majority backing a government, that is currently seriously discussing cannabis legalization or regulation in a different way. “I don’t see a discussion coming up of the level as it is in the Americas,” he said in Lisbon, the agency’s headquarters. Portugal pioneered the decriminalization of all drug use in 2001 and some countries have followed suit, making possession of small quantities of drugs, especially marijuana, a misdemeanor rather than criminal offence. Germany allows seriously ill patients to grow, buy and consume their own cannabis under a special license, and medical marijuana is legal in the Czech Republic, but otherwise cultivation and use remain illegal in the EU. In the United States, 23 states and the District of Columbia allow medical marijuana, and voters in four states have gone further by approving the drug for recreational use by adults. But the drug remains illegal under federal law, which classifies pot as a dangerous narcotic with no current medical use. The EU drug monitoring agency said technical innovation and market competition have led to an increase in the potency of cannabis, the purity of cocaine and the MDMA-content in ecstasy tablets. It also flagged market changes such as detection of heroin processing laboratories in Europe and a greater diversification of trafficking routes and opioid products, which, combined with a substantial increase in opium production in Afghanistan, could reverse declines in heroin supply and stagnation of demand. Claim: EU drug agency sees no U.S.-like cannabis legalization moves.
European Union countries are unlikely to legalize marijuana any time soon as some parts of the United States have done recently, EU drug monitoring agency chief Wolfgang Gotz said on Thursday.

Paragraph: Analyzing the roll of the foot remains standard practice among fitness and medical professionals in the belief it will lead to a better shoe fit and fewer injuries. “When it comes to shoe choice, the amount of pronation control is extremely important,” said Dr. Jane Andersen, a podiatrist in private practice in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. “Some people need more than others. It can cause a lot of problems if you have the wrong one.”  Anderson, a runner herself and past president of the American Association for Women Podiatrists, said the No. 1 cause of the overuse injuries she sees, from stress fractures to tendonitis to Plantar fasciitis (heel pain), is shoes that are worn out or the wrong fit. There are three basic levels of control for standard running shoes: neutral, stability and motion control. “Neutral is generally good for a high-arch foot; it doesn’t provide extra control for pronation,” she said. “The stability shoe works for people who need more support; motion control is for the super flat-footed.”  At Jack Rabbit Sports store in New York City, clients’ arches are observed before they hit the treadmill for runs that are videotaped for slow-motion analysis. “The basic premise is that most people land on their heel (and) overpronate or underpronate,” said Johanna Bjorken, the store’s merchandise director. “This causes running injuries and shoes can address this. This has been the model.”  Bjorken said neutral shoes account for 60 to 63 percent of the running shoes sold in her store; 30 to 35 percent are stability shoes. The mobility category is very small and usually follows on doctor’s advice. “Some rolling in is natural, normal and beneficial,” she explained. “Compared to 20 years ago, running shoes are really much more flexible, lightweight and well designed to work with movements of running.”  American Council on Exercise spokesperson, Dr. Mark Kelly, a runner for 35 years, is a self-described underpronator who believes in heeding an individual’s “biomechanical tendencies.”  “Get a certified trainer to look at the biomechanics of how you’re running,” Kelly said. “How are you turning your foot? Are you a forefoot striker, midfoot striker, heel striker, or extreme heel striker?”  Connecticut-based exercise physiologist Tom Holland, author of “The Marathon Method,” thinks many of the common running-related injuries, such as runner’s knee, shin splints and hip issues are related to and exacerbated by improper footwear. “Once you find a shoe that works for you, stick with it,” he said. Nevertheless, a recent Danish study cast doubt on whether shoes that control pronation do actually cut down on injury. But the scientists said more work is needed to determine if highly pronated feet face a higher risk of injury than neutral feet. Claim: It's all about the roll when choosing running shoes.

Fitness experts have long advised clients choosing a running shoe to forget fashion and consider the roll or pronation - the way the foot leans inward upon impact.