Given a document and an entity the task is to select the author's sentiment towards the entity. Sentiments can be Positive, Neutral and Negative. Select Positive if the article expresses a positive view towards the given entity or praises its quality or skills. Select Neutral if the document expresses no clear view towards the entity or has equal amounts of positive and negative statements or expressing some fact/quote by someone else. Select Negative if the article expresses a negative view towards like harsh remarks, criticizing entities action/decision etc. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

Q: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Antonin Scalia ? With “Scalia Speaks: Reflections on Law  Faith  and Life Well Lived ” Christopher J. Scalia and Edward Whelan have given us a treasure that captures Justice Antonin Scalia’s brilliance  wit  faith  humility and wide range of knowledge. When I read this collection of his speeches  edited by the justice’s son and one of his law clerks  I feel like  Scalia  is in the room with me. Taken together  the speeches are a book-length argument for constitutional originalism and for  Scalia ’s understanding of the role of judges in the United States. Anyone who wants to understand Scalia as a person and as a judicial philosopher should start by reading this book.
[ Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia  dies at 79]
 Scalia   in my view  is the best justice who has ever served on the Supreme Court in its 227-year history.  He  and Justice Joseph Story are the only two justices to have published books on constitutional and statutory interpretation.  Scalia  articulated a clear philosophy of a judge’s role  to which  he  always adhered.  He  was one of the two best writers ever to serve on the court and was equal on this score to Justice Robert Jackson  known for  his  fine literary style. No other justice traveled so much and spoke to so many audiences in the United States and abroad. Finally   he  was to originalism what Saint Paul was to Christianity — a tireless and widely traveled evangelist of the gospel. Understanding Scalia is thus imperative for all law students  lawyers and educated lay people. Because the book is a collection of speeches  many of which were given to lay people  it is very readable  understandable and fun for most age groups.
“ Scalia  Speaks ” by Antonin Scalia  Edited by Christopher Scalia (Crown Forum)
Addressing the difference between American and European values   Scalia  notes that “the United States was settled primarily by people seeking  in one way or another  refuge from the ways of Europe. The men who founded our Republic did not aspire to emulating Europeans at all — to the contrary  the project of drafting the American Constitution was largely about ensuring that the American people would never languish under the yoke of a European-style government.”
This is a critically important point that many fail to appreciate. The legal academics and public intellectuals who love European socialism overlook the fact that the United States  under its unique Constitution  is the third-most-populous country in the world  covering the fourth-largest territory  and has by far the highest gross domestic product per capita of any of the Group of 20 nations  a strength that allows us to do more to help the poor around the world while offering military defense to a range of countries. Few people choose to move from the United States to other countries  but millions of people want to live here.  Scalia  appreciated that the reason for this is that the U.S. Constitution is an engine of power and economic growth that sustains “life  liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
As an excellent writer   Scalia  offers advice on the craft. “Time and sweat ”  he  says  are the keys to good writing  and a well-written document emerges only after many drafts. “I think there is writing genius ” he  says  just as there is musical genius  “which consists primarily  I think  of the ability to place oneself in the shoes of one’s audience; to assume only what they assume; to anticipate what they anticipate  to explain what they need explained  to think what they must be thinking; to feel what they must be feeling.”
 Scalia  regrets that most American college and law students never read the Federalist Papers and therefore do not understand our Constitution or the American founding very well.  He  tirelessly urges us to learn from the wisdom of the framers of our Constitution  which so few Americans tend to do.
In a chapter on “Original Meaning ” Scalia reveals that at a conference  he challenged Attorney General Edwin Meese III on how to assess the Constitution’s original intent. Meese argued in favor of a judicial philosophy that searched for the original intentions of the framers. Scalia said he favored searching for the original meaning of the words of the Constitution instead. In his speech at the conference  he strongly set out the case for original public meaning  persuading Meese’s chief of staff  Ken Cribb  by the force of his argument. After  Scalia  finished speaking  Cribb scrawled the word “Stipulated” on a piece of paper and taped it to the podium. Two days later  President Ronald Reagan informed  Scalia  that  he  was going to be nominated to the Supreme Court.
 Scalia  speaks in  his  own words in this magnificent volume that should be on the bookshelf of every educated American.

A: Positive
****
Q: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Matt Lauer ? On Wednesday morning  NBC confirmed that they had fired morning news anchor  Matt Lauer .  Lauer  has served as the centerpiece of Today  which The New York Times calls âthe most important part of the NBC News franchise â since 1997. A memo from NBC News chairman Andy Lack cited âinappropriate sexual behaviorâ as the grounds for termination.
âOn Monday night â Lack wrote  âWe received a detailed complaint from a colleague about inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace by  Matt Lauer . It represented  after serious review  a clear violation of our companyâs standards.â
While NBC took swift action against  Lauer  even before the allegations went public  itâs safe to assume that this story is far from over. As Lack himself acknowledged  âWhile it is the first complaint about his behavior in the over twenty years heâs been at NBC News  we were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident.â
In the wake of  Lauer âs unexpected departure  Today was forced to reckon with the story in real time. Lauerâs co-host Savannah Guthrie was tasked with reporting on the latest in a string of sexual misconduct stories  this time involving her âdear  dear friendâ and colleague. âHow do you reconcile your love for someone with the revelation that they have behaved badly?â an emotional Guthrie asked. âAll we can say is we are heartbroken; Iâm heartbroken.â
Like the other recently disgraced media men before him  Lauerâs career is now open for reexamination. One incident thatâs already been circulated and picked apart by social media is the Presidential Forum that  Lauer  moderated in September 2016. At the time   Lauer  was widely criticized for the way  he  interacted with candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton  with many accusing the Today host of employing a sexist double standard. In one article  âHow Sexism  Like Matt Lauerâs  Could Imperil the Nation â Adele M. Stan wrote  âWhen questioning Clinton   Lauer  was all alpha-male  interrupting  her  and tsk-tsking  her  for criticizing  her  opponent after he had asked  her  not to do so. But when paired with Trump  it became clear who was the alpha in that set-up. It clearly wasn't  Lauer   who allowed Trump to talk over him  and to evade specifics.â
While  Lauer âs tendency to interrupt Clinton repeatedlyâwhile letting Trump go largely unchallengedâwas certainly cringe-worthy  it may not be Lauerâs most painful on-air interaction. Anyone searching for an example of overt sexism need look no further than his 2012 Today interview with Anne Hathaway. The actress  who was promoting her film Les Miserables at the time  had had the misfortune of being photographed during a âwardrobe malfunction.â âI was getting out of the car and my dress was so tight that I didnât realize it until I saw all the photographersâ flashes â she reportedly said in response to the âdevastatingâ incident. As if the revealing photographs werenât enough  Hathaway was then grilled on the minor controversy by  Lauer   who opened the interview with a gross allusion to the intimate pics.
âAnne Hathaway  good morning  nice to see you. Seen a lot of you lately â  Lauer  greeted  his  guest. While Hathaway  who responded that  âIâd be happy to stay home â clearly had no interest in discussing the upskirt shots   Lauer  continued. âLetâs just get it out of the way. You had a little wardrobe malfunction the other night. Whatâs the lesson learned from something like that  other than that you keep smiling  which youâll always do.â To summarize:  Lauer   mistaking pervy paparazzi pics for actual news  asked an accomplished actress about a painful incident  phrasing the invasion of privacy as a personal failing (âwhatâs the lesson learned from something like that?â). To make matters even worse  he all but told Hathaway to smile through itâwhich is just what every woman wants to hear from a man whoâs talking down to her about her lack of underwear on national television.
Hathaway  to her credit  managed to own  Lauer   replying  âWell  it was obviously an unfortunate incident. It kind of made me sad on two accounts. One was that I was very sad that we live in an age when someone takes a picture of another person in a vulnerable moment  and rather than delete it and do the decent thing  sells it. And Iâm sorry that we live in a culture that commodifies sexuality of unwilling participants  which brings us back to Les Mis  because thatâs what the character [Fantine] is. She is someone who is forced to sell sex to benefit her child because she has nothing and thereâs no social safety net so yeahâletâs get back to Les Mis.â

A: Negative
****
Q: What is the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Amitabh Bachchan ? Amitabh Bachchan (Credit: STRDEL/AFP/Getty Images)
There are three things that power the nation of India: food  cricket  and cinema. Take away that holy trinity  and no Indian would agree to get out of bed to a country filled with poverty  partisan riots  and corruption. I was born and raised in New Delhi  and my family so besotted with movies that our modest flat boasted three televisions  which lowered the odds of World War III breaking out between those who chose the news broadcast over the 1955 black-and-white Devdas  or the primary colored Hindi musicals of the 1980s  or Wimbledon. Only one man could unite a family:  Hindi film actor Amitabh Bachchan . He's not a politician or a saint  even though there's a temple that prays for him in Calcutta. But he's family to practically everyone I consider family.
For someone so integral to India   Bachchan  struck out with  his  first nine films.  He  scored a major Indian film award for 1970's Anand  but it wasn't  his  breakout role. Depending on who you ask   Bachchan 's rise could be credited to 1972's action comedy Bombay to Goa  or the decade-defining Zanjeer in 1973. Objectively  the latter did spark the nexus of  Bachchan 's fame: the "angry young man" struggling daily in a country rife with despair and unemployment  who isn't afraid to fight back if necessary.
India in the 70s was overflowing with young college graduate males who'd been told their dreams would come true in a country that was just turning 30. Instead  they stared down arch societal expectations. Around this time  there were also unwed mothers who'd been abandoned by the rotten male scoundrels in their lifeâyoung women repulsed by men leering at them on buses and in college corridors. There were dockworkers who dreamed of glamour and intrigue. Ordinary people everywhere wanted to be whisked away for three hours and 30 minutes.  Bachchan  was a handsome young man with  his  back to the wall in movies about surviving while staying true to faith and family; to millions   he  was life itself.
 Bachchan  plays Jai  a common yet wise criminal who  along with  his  partner Veeru  is recruited by an ex-cop who wishes revenge on a famous dacoit. I watched Sholay last week for the first time in almost a decade  and it was such a warm and welcome experience that I wanted to dance in the streets and send everyone to Hindi classes so they could understand the dialogue. Indeed  there are nuances in  Bachchan 's delivery that risk being lost in translation; in Sholay   his  voice moves like oiled leather  and  his  first line of dialogue translated is a hallmark of leftism: "All cops look the same to  me ."
While recently revisiting  Bachchan 's filmography  two films took me by surprise. I hadn't seen Abhimaan from 1973 since I was a teenager and was wary to revisit it; based on the marital troubles of Pandit Ravi Shankar and his first wife  Annapurna Devi  it's an dissection of the jealousy that consumes a famous singer after his new bride turns out to be more talented than him. The film's honest depiction of sexual desire and gratification  and its death in the face of discord  took me by surprise  and that  Bachchan  plays the part of the disgruntled singer opposite his own wife  Jaya Bhaduri  adds layers to the film that I wouldn't have noticed as a child.
On the other hand  I've watched 1975's Chupke Chupke many times and have yet to tire of  Bachchan 's portrayal of Sukumar Sinha  an intelligent English literature professor who's hapless in playing an elaborate practical joke on his friend's brother-in-law.  Bachchan  has comedic potential that directors have often ignored in order to rack up the drama points; he's no less hilarious in Piku from 2015  in which he plays ornery Bengali father Bhashkor Banerjee  consumed by constipation and all discussions thereof.
Bhashkor lives with his adult daughter Piku (Deepika Padukone)  an architect who's nearing her last nerve while taking care of her father; for the first time  I saw myself in  Bachchan  in that I know what it is to be a stubborn Bengali daughter to a stubborn Bengali father. Water pooled in my eyes as I imagined future conversations about the color and consistency of stool with an ailing fatherâwhether from mirth or sorrow  I wasn't sure.
Truffaut called  Bachchan  a "one-man industry"; a nation full of disheartened unemployed youths called him "the angry young man"; mothers called him their son. As for my aunt  she didn't call him anything when she met him once  after a premiere in New Delhi. She was a teenager  and shook his hand. He smiled at her. That night  she slept with that hand cupped neatly against one cheek. I am certain that if I am lucky enough to meet him before he passes  I would do the same.

A:
Positive
****