instruction:
Given a document, find the main entity about whom the author is writing. Write the full name if mentioned in the text. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
question:
Newspapers on Tuesday ran pictures of the urbane   U.S.-educated Foreign Minister Javad Zarif  laughing and hugging the commander of the guards  Major-General Mohammad Ali Jafari.
 Zarif  brief lawmakers on Wednesday about the expected U.S. action and about Iranâs plans for a response  according to members of parliament quoted in state media.
âIn the closed session  Zarif  emphasized that if the Americans take any steps against the nuclear deal that the Islamic Republic of Iran will give them a more crushing response â Shahbaz Hassanpour  a lawmaker representing the city of Sirjan  told the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).
Lawmakers did not disclose the specific actions that  Zarif  had discussed as plans for Iranian retaliation.
answer:
Javad Zarif


question:
in restaurants to offer customers plastic straws without first being asked . Since introducing his bill last week    Democratic Assemblyman Ian Calderon  has been the target of scorn from critics who call  his  proposal " absurd " and an overreach of government . " It really is a reasonable measured approach that I think will make a difference  "  Calderon  told ABC News on Monday about  his  proposed bill . California State Asssembly  He  explained that when  he  sent the proposal to the state legislative rules committee   health and safety code penalties were automatically tacked on   making it a misdemeanor punishable by six months in jail and a $ 1   000 fine for dine - in restaurants caught offering plastic straws without being requested . " I didn ' t actually ask for penalties  " Calderon said . " They were more or less prescribed to my bill by the code section ." But critics immediately jumped on him . Assemblyman Travis Allen   a Republican candidate for governor of California   asked people on his campaign Facebook page to protest the bill by flooding Calderon ' s office with plastic straws . California State Assembly " Instead of tackling the real issues   today ' s California Democrats are more interested in giving jail time to waiters offering their customers the convenience of having a straw  " Allen told ABC News on Monday . " This is one absurd bill   but it highlights how ridiculous the California Democrats have gotten . This is clearly the last straw ." Paul Preston said such laws are the reason he co - founded a movement to break up the state and form a New California   where regulations aren ' t overbearing and discouraging to businesses . " It ' s absolute lunacy  " Preston told ABC News of  Calderon  ' s bill . " They are criminalizing everything we do . It ' s over the top ."  Calderon  brushed off the bashing   saying an estimated 500 million plastic straws are used every day in the United States and most are just used once and discarded .  He  said plastic straws and stirrers were the sixth most common items collected during California Coastal Cleanup Days between 1989 and 2014 . " We need to create awareness around the issue of one - time use of plastic straws and its detrimental effects on our landfills   waterways and oceans  " Calderon said . STOCK PHOTO / Getty Images He said he ' ll work to get the bill ' s language rewritten so that no one fears going to jail or paying hefty fines for handing out plastic straws . He said he expects the bill to reach Gov . Jerry Brown ' s desk for approval in about two months . " Nobody is going to jail   nobody is going to be getting a $ 1   000 fine  " said Calderon   adding that the bill does not affect fast - food restaurants or grocery stores . He said critics like Allen are " grasping at straws " by saying such legislation is hurting businesses in California . " It ' s a ridiculous argument  " he said . Sharokina Shams -- a spokeswoman for the California Restaurant Association   which represents more than 20   000 restaurants in the state -- told ABC News her group is taking a wait - and - see approach on  Calderon  ' s bill . " The association will study the bill ' s potential impacts and consult with its membership before taking an officials stance on the bill  " said Shams   adding that  Calderon  ' s proposal " is preferable to an outright ban on straws ." Matt Davis   a spokesman for the national environmental group Clean Water Action   said Calderon ' s proposal makes sense . " It ' s great he ' s doing it  " Davis told ABC News . " It does reduce the amount of straws that restaurants are giving out and that ' s a good thing ." He said cities such as Alameda   California   have passed local straws - on - request ordinances and that many restaurants have saved money by not having to provide so many straws . He compared it to the plastic shopping bag ban passed by California voters in 2016 or water - on - request ordinances used to combat the state ' s drought   saying people got used to it . In New Jersey   too   local businesses have been participating in an initiative to reduce plastic straw use . And it has dramatically reduced the number of straws the companies are giving out   according to the Montclair Local . A local eatery said it was using about a tenth of the straws it had previously used on a monthly basis   from 6   800 straws to 650   the paper reported . Back in California   Davis said Calderon ' s concerns that plastic straws are fouling up the ocean are real . " There is going to be more plastic in the ocean than there are fish by 2050  " Davis said   citing a study by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation that was presented to the World Economic Forum in 2016 . He said that plastic breaks down into minute particles that fish mistake for food . " I don ' t want plastic in my sushi  " he said .
answer:
Ian Calderon


question:
A scene from  Hillary Clinton 's 2016 Election Night event. Photo by Win McNamee/Getty
Susan Sarandon is about to get a large tax cut for her role in saving the US from a  Hillary Clinton  presidency; so is Colin Kaepernick. Thatâs 2017 in a nutshell: The country is beginning to experience the fruits of a misguided hatred of  Clinton  that helped make Donald Trump president.
I single Kaepernick and Sarandon out not because they are bad people  but because even conscientious Americans like them made a grave mistake when they allowed their distaste for  Clinton  and an imperfect Democratic Party to blind them to the threat of Trump. As the country continues to grapple with the consequences of his presidency  we should remember that we are here in part because some underestimated the threat he posed.
In June 2016  Sarandon (who supported Bernie Sanders in the primary before endorsing Jill Stein) said on the Young Turks that âin a wayâ  Clinton  was more dangerous than Trump. âTheyâre both talking to Henry Kissinger  apparently â she said. âShe did not learn from Iraq  and she is an interventionist  and she has done horrible things  and very callously. I donât know if she is overcompensating or what her trip is. That scares me. I think weâll be in Iran in two seconds.â
Well   Clinton  lostâand many observers are worried that the US is inching closer to war with Iran.
Kaepernick has used his voice to raise incredibly important issues even while being ridiculed and jeopardizing his professional football career. But he bought into a false narrative in September 2016 when he claimed there was little difference between  Clinton  and Trump  saying it was embarrassing to see the US have two âproven liarsâ as the presidential nominees. âYou have to pick the lesser of two evils. But in the end  itâs still evil â he said.
He couldnât even stick to that and didnât vote in the end  claiming that either Trump or  Clinton  would just be âanother face thatâs going to be the face of that system of oppression. And to me  it didnât really matter who went in there  the system still remains intact that oppresses people of color.â
Neither is this an attempt to absolve  Clinton  of  her  flaws and faults.  She  was one of the least popular presidential nominees in American history because of choices  she  made.  She  should have anticipated the potential ramifications of setting up a private server for  her  emails while secretary of State.  She  could have mustered the courage or had the foresight to vote against the Iraq war.  She  and  her  husband could have decided against making high-dollar Wall Street speeches and other dubious choices that haunted  her  during the campaign.  She  used the term âsuper predator â popularized by an Ivy League criminologist who wrongly anticipated a surge in violent crime among young men  particularly young men of color  to argue in favor of  her  husbandâs 1994 crime bill. As secretary of state   she  argued in favor of a robust military role in parts of the Middle East  policies that are still playing out in ugly ways in places such as Yemen and Libya and Syria.
It is also true that  her  high level of unpopularity was partially built upon conspiracies  the sins of  her  husband  and double standards.  She  had been in the sights of America's right wing for decades and was accused of murder and being involved in a supposed secret child sex scheme.  She  was criticized for staying with  her  husband after his well-publicized affairs  but surely would have been criticized had  she  left him.  She  took the lionâs share of criticism about policiesâlike the Iraq War and crime billâthat had widespread bipartisan support. The crime bill  for instance  was backed by most of the Congressional Black Caucus and many black activists concerned by drug-fueled gang wars in their communities. Bernie Sanders voted for it too.
There were honest critiques of  Clinton . But there was also a caricature of  her  as a liar and a fraud that ultimately helped Trump.
And despite the claims that  Clinton  did not do enough for vulnerable and people of color  after college  she  did not head to Wall Street when  she  could haveâ she  went to the Childrenâs Defense Fund instead. And  she  went undercover to expose racial discrimination in Alabama. And  she  was an important figure in the formation of a program that still provides health insurance for millions of poor children. And  she   like so many other talented women  often sacrificed  her  own ambitions to help further  her  husbandâs. When  she  was a senator  she  was praised by colleagues from both parties for  her  ability to get things done.  She  was not in favor of going into Libya because  she  wanted another war;  she  believed it would help prevent what some believed was a pending massacre. No   she  is not from the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party  but neither is  she  an amoral warmonger. If  she  seemed likely to continue Obamaâs interventionist policies and continue to use dronesâwell  Sanders said he would use drones to fight terrorism as well.
There were honest critiques of  Clinton . But there was also a caricature of  her  as a liar and a fraud that ultimately helped Trumpâwho didnât have  her  record of public service or  her  experience. The narrative that both candidates were equally tainted by scandal was pushed by many disillusioned leftists and helped along by a media that gave a disproportionate amount of coverage to  Clinton âs emails. Voters looking for an excuse to cast a ballot for Trump or stay home in disgust were given one by the anti-Clinton brigade.
There were many other reasons why  Clinton  lost by a razor-thin margin  including James Comeyâs last-minute decision to announce a reopening of the email investigation and  her  campaignâs own poor decision not to aggressively campaign in the upper Midwest.
Sarandon and Kaepernick likely have real empathy for 800 000 or so DACA recipients whose future is uncertain. They may cry for the record number of civilian casualties that have resulted from the way Trump has prosecuted long-simmering wars in the Middle East. They probably hate that the Justice Department has rolled back the police oversight policies from the Obama administration. Iâm sure they are terrified by how emboldened white supremacists are in the Trump era. But the decision made by voters like them in Novemberâto prioritize their disdain for  Clinton  over everything elseâhelped pave the way for all of that  and more.
It wasnât just 63 million mostly white voters who put Trump in office; he was helped by Americans who deluded themselves into thinking there would be no material difference between a Trump and  Clinton  presidency.
Had  Clinton  been president this year instead of Trump  DACA recipients and their supporters would not have to wonder whether they would face deportation come March and could be pushing for actual immigration reform. Had  Clinton  been president  2017 would have been spent debating how best to improve and expand the Affordable Care Act rather than by a desperate attempt to save it. Democrats would have had a fifth vote on the Supreme Court to shore up womenâs rights and voting rights. If there was a tax reform bill  it would have been better constructed to help the poor and middle class. Kaepernick and Sarandon were wrong: There was a big difference between  Clinton  and Trump  and weâve been seeing it all year.
answer:

Hillary Clinton