In this task, you are given books product reviews in English language. The goal is to classify the review as "POS" if the overall sentiment of the review is positive or as "NEG" if the overall sentiment of the review is negative.
--------
Question: Interesting history... . This was an interesting read.  Napolitano is a Fox News Contributor who is an advocate of interpreting via natural law and reading the Constitution literally for it's intended meaning.  As a result, the Fox News bashers will tend to ignore the book but it's worthy of their attention too because the leftwing liberal idea of reinterpeting the Constitution for today is what lead to legislation like the Patriot Act.  In an unbiased way (politically), his criticisms of the current administration are well-balanced with a good explanation and examples of abuse.  I've traditionally been a supporter of the Republicans and the Patriot act but the Judge's book have made me rethink the Patriot Act.  I was also surprised at how far back in time some of the interpretation contraversies go, some dating back to Hamilton and Jefferson themselves

Answer: POS


Question: Post-modern science fiction . Maybe I'm just not the right demographic for this novel, but I hated the beginning, tolerated the middle and put it down permanently near the end. The model is the Canterbury Tales of Chaucer, but I don't think it works. I just never got interested in the characters enough to care what happened to them and for me, the story--stories, really--never came into focus. I guess the New York Times Book Review should have tipped me off because they compare it to Frank Herbert's Dune and the Foundation series of Asimov, both of which, in my opinion have aged really badly. I never realized how bad Dune was until I saw the awful movie of it.    The fundamental metaphors operating in Hyperion seem to be backwards living. Well, ok, but I just don't see what it is a metaphor for. Nor, by page 473 where I finally gave up, did I care

Answer: NEG


Question: Overly simplistic.. . Barber's analysis ignores important facts in order to prove his thesis about how the primary battle in the world being between the free market and religious fundamentalism. It works, somewhat, but fails to take into account numerous instances where this tension is called into question. Not every zealot in the world is an enemy of technology, as the War in Iraq has shown us.

Answer:
NEG