Given a document, an entity and its sentiment towards the entity, verify if it is the correct sentiment towards the entity. Answer should be yes or no. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
--------
Question: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Bart Fisher is Positive . The top recipient has been Fisher Ranch LLC  the family company of Bart Fisher  a board member and the valleyâs second-largest landowner after Metropolitan. The records show his company has received $27.6 million in annual payments since 2005 for land left fallow.
 Fisher  and other board members say theyâve had no conflicts of interest in these decisions  and their attorney has backed them up. They say the fact that theyâve benefited from the program is the nature of their agencyâs structure as a landowner-voting district. All of the board members are landowners  and theyâre elected by landowners under a voting system in which the largest property owners can cast the largest numbers of votes.
 Fisher  was a leading proponent of the agreement in the early 2000s.  He  said  he  supported it because  he  strongly believed it was in the best long-term interests of landowners and the community.
âThe financial interests of the board were the same as the financial interests of our electorate â  Fisher  said.  He  recalled that Palo Verdeâs attorney advised the board ahead of the vote that they were fine to proceed with the decision.
âThereâs no conflict at PVID at all  because of how we are constituted â  Fisher  said. âOur electorate is whom we serve  and our electorate are landowners.â
Standing beside hay bales on his farm  Palo Verde Irrigation District board member Bart Fisher talks about the agency's lawsuit against the Metropolitan Water District. (Photo: Jay Calderon/The Desert Sun)
When they negotiated the terms of the deal   Fisher  said  the overarching purpose was helping California meet its water needs âwithout diminishing agriculture or our community in the process.â
âI have a vested interest and so do all the landowners in Palo Verde  especially those who participate in the program â  Fisher  said.
Participating farmers received an initial signup bonus of $3 170 per acre. In  Fisher âs case  the records show  his family entities received $6.3 million in initial signup payments.
Having those regular payments can function as a âsafety netâ for farming businesses during hard times and can provide a guarantee to help in getting credit from banks   Fisher  said. That doesnât mean it always pays more than farming  though. Looking back at some years   Fisher  said  farmers would have earned more selling crops than having unplanted fields.
 Fisher  is a third-generation farmer whose family started farming in the Palo Verde Valley in 1917.  He  said the fact that Fisher Ranch has received more from Metropolitan than any other business simply reflects the fact that  his  family has been farming for a century and has gradually expanded its landholdings.
 Fisher  farms more than 11 000 acres  growing hay  wheat  broccoli  cantaloupes and honeydew melons.
 He  said while  his  business receives large sums based on that acreage  it takes a lot of money to run the operation.  Fisher  pointed out that  he  and other growers make huge investments in tractors â which can cost roughly $300 000 each â as well as other equipment. They take out big loans and have large payrolls.
âJust to be in agriculture requires access to vast amounts of capital â  Fisher  said. âNobodyâs getting rich on this program.â
Palo Verde Irrigation District officials â from left  Board Member Jack Seiler   General Manager Ned Hyduke and President Bart Fisher â  talk about why  they  decided to sue Metropolitan Water District. (Photo: Jay Calderon/The Desert Sun)
While considering whether to sue   Fisher  said Palo Verdeâs board members discussed the fact that under the agreement  Metropolitan has the ability to cancel the entire program.

Answer: yes


Question: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Medvedev is Positive . Russia's catastrophic wildfires this summer have demonstrated the need to reform the nation's forest protection legislation and the state forestry agency  President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday.
 The remarks appeared to reflect Medvedev's desire to take a higher profile on economic and domestic policy issues presently controlled by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin -- though Medvedev stopped short of an open challenge to his powerful predecessor and mentor.
 Putin has taken a highly visible lead in efforts to combat the fires  visiting affected areas and even taking a seat in a firefighting plane while Medvedev was chairing dull official meetings. Many political commentators perceived Putin's action as a sign of his intention to reclaim the presidency in 2012 and a clear warning to Mevedev to stand by.
 Medvedev indicated Wednesday that the prime minister's move to take direct control of the forestry agency  Rosleskhoz  could be insufficient to properly protect the nation's forests in the future.
 "If it's more convenient to work that way  you are welcome " Medvedev told a government meeting focused on forests. "But if it proves insufficient  I reserve the right to radically change those structures."
 He said the blazes had shown that the current law and the existing official structures can't properly protect the forests.
 "It's quite obvious that the legal base and the organizational structure that we have don't fit the purpose " Medvedev said in televised remarks.
 The president also said that the need for changing the current forest legislation also must be carefully analyzed.
Putin and Medvedev both have said they would decide later who will run for president.
 Medvedev avoided any direct criticism of Putin  but said Wednesday the 2006 law had left most of the nation's forests without due oversight.
 He also seemed to defy Putin on another issue -- the construction of a new highway northwest of Moscow that would destroy a forest near the town of Khimki. Putin's Cabinet has continued to support it despite growing public opposition.

Answer: yes


Question: Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Bashar al-Assad is Negative . Supporters of the Syrian regime rejected any link to a chemical weapons strike. They claimed the reports were fabricated by terrorist groups in Idlib and suggested the fatalities were the result of an explosion at a supposed al-Qaeda chemical weapons factory. Russian authorities  whose warplanes are flying in support of the regime  said they had not conducted a strike in the area around the town. But the broader international reaction was vehement â and put the blame squarely on  Syrian President Bashar al-Assad .
Such strikes are a regime tactic to further demoralize the flagging rebellion. " Assad  calculates  reasonably  that military dynamics play in  his  favor. By using chemical weapons and other weapons   he  is demonstrating the powerlessness of international actors " Emile Hokayem  a Middle East analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies  told The Washington Post.
"Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people  including women and children  is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world " said White House press secretary Sean Spicer. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution."
It's seemingly a bizarre line of attack for the Trump administration to choose. In 2013  the Obama administration contemplated a military response after a suspected regime chemical weapons attack on rebel-held districts in the suburbs of Damascus killed more than 1 000 people. The mounting international pressure at the time compelled  Assad  to agree to eliminate its chemical weapons program.
The fact that Obama chose to back off from confronting the  Assad  regime  which allegedly used chemical weapons numerous times in the years since  will forever haunt the former president's legacy. Much of the Washington foreign policy establishment has excoriated him for it. But Trump in 2013 â then a private citizen with the same itchy Twitter finger â was opposed to American intervention in Syria.
The irony is that Trump's position on the Syrian conflict isn't that far removed from Obama's â although it's more conspicuous in its indifference to the plight of Syrian refugees. The previous administration called for  Assad 's departure  but it did little to actually push for regime change  fearing that any deeper involvement in the Syrian conflict would risk the sort of blowback and chaos that rocked Iraq after the 2003 U.S. invasion. Trump  meanwhile  has insisted on multiple occasions that he is not interested in nation-building in the Middle East or dictating regime change. His lieutenants indicated as recently as last week that the White House does not prioritize removing  Assad  from power.

Answer:
yes