Your task is to extract the thesis of an opinionated news article by selecting some of its text segments. The thesis is a summarization of what the author wants to persuade the reader of. Your answer should consist of segments of the given text. Note that you are not allowed to combine different sentences.

[EX Q]: Sia's video: let's be wary of seeing paedophilia everywhere. Australian musician Sia has apologised to anyone "triggered" by her video for Elastic Heart, featuring Shia LaBeouf and 12-year-old dance prodigy Maggie Ziegler, dancing together, in flesh-coloured outfits (Ziegler sporting a platinum Sia wig), in a cage . The video has caused uproar in some quarters . Fame-averse Sia(who generally performs with her face hidden) tweeted:"I anticipated some 'paedophilia!!!' cries for this video . All I can say is Maddie and Shia are two of the only actors I felt could play these two warring 'Sia self states'" , adding that her intention was to "create some emotional content, not to upset anybody" . The video is jarring . Famously troubled LaBeouf and Ziegler dance around, wrestling, attacking, playing . At one point, LaBeouf holds Ziegler aloft ; at another, he tries to stroke her and she kicks and hisses to get away . Elsewhere, Ziegler wraps her tiny limbs around LaBeouf in a feral grip . Watching it, I realised that the intensity(Sia's "emotional content") was the reason it was jarring - the mere fact that the video wasn't carefully benign, cheaply titillating or just plain boring, like so much else in the genre . In Elastic Heart, the grown man and the young girl are alive with feelings for each other, running the gamut from amusement and play through to fury to despair . What isn't there is sexuality . In fact ,  it baffles me how anyone could look seriously at Elastic Heart and claim to see any sexual content whatsoever . Can't a grown man and a young girl produce art with edge and beauty of any kind without a squalid sexual subtext instantly being read into it? Sia seemed to apologise for potentially triggering memories of child sex abuse and grooming (as some accused her of doing, on behalf of abuse victims) . Of course we all sympathise with abuse victims . However, one would imagine that such triggers would be everywhere - perhaps mainly focused on the most ordinary and domestic of situations . All of which couldn't be further away from a highly choreographed performance of an arty cage dance . If some abuse survivors were genuinely disturbed by Elastic Heart then fair enough, but what about those who referred to it as an excuse for their own unease? Are these people aware that Ziegler performed solo, dressed identically, dancing similarly, for Sia's Chandelier video . Did this talented young dancer remind them of child sex abuse then? If not, is it because LaBeouf was in Elastic Heart - so presumably a woman performing the same dance with Ziegler would have been perfectly fine . Is this where we are now: society flinching from the sight of a man and a girl performing together in any way that hasn't been entirely emotionally neutered? Ultimately, this discomfort seems wrapped up in our own dirty, addled, increasingly paranoid 21st-century mindset, in which paedophilia, once so grotesquely secretive, is now seen everywhere and in the most kneejerk fashion . No one could complain about increased awareness of abuse , which means that children are finally protected and believed . Such instincts come from a good (better informed) place . However ,  the situation has surely become overcooked when paedophilia becomes one of the first things we presume and in the most ludicrous settings . It becomes so that everything, even art, is expected to distil and accommodate all the retrospective guilt of bygone eras: the fact that so many perpetrators of the past weren't caught, that we were lax, not observant or protective enough . In some ways, it's good not to forget ; in others, perhaps we need to get past it . The latter is true of Elastic Heart - a video found to be offensive because of sanctioned hysteria, rather than anything happening on screen  - all the more disturbing when set against the wider background of any artist being scared into silence or self-censorship . Sia should not have been badgered into an apology . She had nothing to apologise for . Russia has listed transsexual and transgender people as no longer being allowed to qualify for driving licences . They are to be classed as having "mental disorders" , which would also include exhibitionism, voyeurism and fetishism of any kind (others include compulsive gambling and stealing) . The official line is that this is because there are too many road accidents in Russia and tightening medical controls has become necessary . However ,  Russian psychiatrists and human rights lawyers have condemned the move , which appears to follow on from the infamous 2013 legislation that made the promotion of "non-traditional lifestyles" illegal . Barring a person from driving for no good reason is a serious matter . It takes away not only a civilian right but also a prime symbol of adult autonomy ; never mind the real logistical difficulties that being car-less might present in parts of Russia . It also means that people who might feel that they'd benefit from some degree of psychiatric counselling would feel less inclined to do so if they feared losing their cars . What a farce . There are some of us who would like it proved that a certain Vladimir Putin is mentally fit to ride that horse he is often(and so sexily!) perched upon . There are shots I've seen where he looks quite thrillingly "barking", bobbing about on his saddle, with no top on, brandishing a rifle like the big he-man he oh so obviously is . More seriously, this reminds us that it's still important to keep abreast of Russian moves such as these . Big and small, these laws represent blatant targeting of minorities and cynical affronts to international human rights . This latest one is yet another shift towards the blanket criminalisation of anything other than blessed, state-ordained heterosexuality . We must keep watching . I go pretty low with television, lower than is dignified . But even I have never watched The Jump , the Channel 4 reality show where low-rent celebrities compete in a variety of winter sports, with the slowest two each week being made to perform a ski jump to decide who will be eliminated . There are always casualties during training . This time, Ola Jordan, of Strictly Come Dancing, injured her knee so badly that it threatens her dancing career . The Speaker's wife, Sally Bercow, also injured herself - her ribs, not her gob , so she'll be able to carry on just fine . We all accept this kind of caper as "normal", but on what premise is such dangerous and sadistic television justified? I thought Splash! was irresponsible(unfit semi-famous people falling off high-diving boards after minimal training) . But ski jumping - are they kidding? A test of mettle, my derriere; this is Lord of the Flies with frostbite . Why don't programme makers go the whole hog and push C-listers into fast-moving traffic and allow viewers to vote on who gets squelched by an articulated lorry the fastest? If people dislike celebrities, then fine, but breaking their bones should be off limits .
[EX A]: Ultimately, this discomfort seems wrapped up in our own dirty, addled, increasingly paranoid 21st-century mindset, in which paedophilia, once so grotesquely secretive, is now seen everywhere and in the most kneejerk fashion  the situation has surely become overcooked when paedophilia becomes one of the first things we presume and in the most ludicrous settings

[EX Q]: Chances of a TV election debate? Choose between zilch and nada. At the time of the last election, David Cameron pronounced that TV debates were "here to stay" . It was his confident declaration that:"We will have them in every election in the future and that is a really good thing for democracy." Many others thought so too . More than 20 million people watched some or all of them . They engaged voters in ways that we hadn't seen before in Britain . To many, it was unthinkable that they wouldn't become a permanent feature of the fabric of our elections . It gives me no pleasure to say that I have always had great doubts that this was really the case . For it to be true, you had to trust the Tory leader not to change his mind . TV debates happened in 2010 only because of an unusual set of circumstances . Mr Cameron had demanded them because that is what opposition leaders nearly always do . Nick Clegg wanted to gain exposure that no previous third party leader had enjoyed . In the wake of the expenses scandal, all the parties were anxious to be seen trying to connect with alienated voters . The key was Gordon Brown . Unusually for a prime minister, he agreed to debates . His people thought he had little to lose and, in a typically Gordon Brownish way, he reckoned he would come over as the man of substance while his Tory and Lib Dem rivals would be exposed as lightweights . It didn't work out as Mr Brown expected . But what is most relevant to what is happening now is that it didn't work out as Mr Cameron anticipated either . The Lib Dem leader, an unknown to many voters before the debates, shone in the first one , presenting himself as the true candidate of change to the disadvantage of David Cameron and unleashing the "Cleggmania" that now seems so long ago . On election night, I was aboard the boat in the Thames hired by the BBC . Among those also present to comment on the results was Michael Ashcroft, the Tory donor and pollster . As it became clear that his party had failed to secure a majority , he placed the blame on the TV debates . That view has since become orthodoxy in the Conservative party . Whether it is entirely true or not, it has been engraved into the Tory soul . Two people were very badly burnt: Mr Cameron himself and George Osborne , who ran the last Tory election campaign and was widely castigated by his colleagues for agreeing to the debates . The chancellor long ago told friends that he is not going to make the same mistake twice . Lynton Crosby, the prime minister's Australian strategist, is also dead-set against TV debates . Craig Oliver, the Number 10 communications chief who has been leading the Tory side in the debate negotiations, is another key figure who believes it is all downside for them . The first reason that David Cameron and his advisers are against debates is the traditional one . He doesn't want to concede equality of status to his opponents . The experience of the Clegg-Farage debates during the Euro elections hardened the belief in Number 10 that debates are bad for incumbents and a gift to challengers . The view around Mr Cameron is expressed by one close ally:"If you are the incumbent, debates are heavily weighted in favour of the insurgents. It is a rigged game." It is not, as is often assumed, fear of Nigel Farage coming at him from the right that most worries the prime minister . His biggest concern is giving a boost to Ed Miliband . TV debates are the Labour leader's best remaining opportunity to secure mass exposure to voters sceptical that he is up to being prime minister and get them to reconsider their view . So poor are his personal ratings, Mr Miliband might only have to turn up and string together a few half-decent sentences and more people would think better of him . The hope that their man could benefit by exceeding low expectations is why Labour is desperate for debates to happen . Which makes the Tories equally desperate for them not to happen . The Conservatives, as we saw last week with their "dodgy dossier" about Labour's spending plans, want to revert to an old-fashioned model of election in which the campaign is dominated by staged leaders' tours in which the prime minister wafts around the country looking presidential and morning news conferences designed, with a bit of help from their friends in the press, to shape the campaign to a Tory agenda . So, from the off, the Conservatives have done everything in their power to prevent TV debates from happening at this election . The broadcasters and the other parties wanted to begin negotiations about the format last spring . The Tories stalled , saying they wouldn't start talking until October . When the negotiations finally got under way, I am told, and by a variety of different sources, that the Conservatives were determined to block any progress toward agreement . "At every stage, they sought to put obstacles in the way," says one source . Another confirms:"The Tories kept throwing spanners in the works." According to a third:"All the parties, including Ukip, took part in good faith except the Conservatives." Last time around, "a heads of agreement" about the debates had been written by December . This time around, we have got to mid-January and aren't even close to that . The last meeting was just before Christmas . "We didn't get anywhere because of the Tories," says one source, an account that is again corroborated by others . I have learned that a meeting between the parties and the broadcasters was scheduled for the Thursday just gone . It was cancelled at the last minute by the Conservatives . No new date has been set . The prime minister's latest excuse for nobbling debates is that he won't do it unless the Greens are included . I happen to agree that the Greens ought to be represented in one debate . There is not much logic to Ofcom's recent preliminary recommendation that Ukip and the Lib Dems should be treated as "major" parties for the purposes of allocating airtime during the campaign, but not the Greens . They have been nip and tuck with the Lib Dems in the opinion polls and quite often done better . They have had representation in the House of Commons for longer than Ukip . So I agree that it would be fair to include the Greens - and hoot with laughter to hear that argument coming out of the mouth of David Cameron . When did he become obsessed with championing the rights of minority parties? Who knew he had such a passion to debate with Natalie Bennett? In the history of political excuses, this must go down as one of the most terrible . By running away from debates, the Tories are taking some risk with their leader's reputation and sense of himself . Says one senior government figure:"Cameron doesn't like being called chicken." If the Cameron brand is supposed to be the strong and confident leader , why is he frit of debating Ed Miliband, a man the Tories keep telling us is hopelessly weak? Won't it simply look bad to deny TV debates to the voters? Yes, it will , but the Tories are calculating that any fuss will be short- lived, soon forgotten and, in the end, not that many voters will punish them for it, especially if their spinners can successfully sow confusion about who is responsible . The Tories also bargain that the press won't make that big a deal of it . About that, they may be right . There was resentment among newspapers during the last campaign that their capacity to shape the agenda was reduced by the TV debates . There are journalists and editors who will be secretly happy if they don't happen again . As things stand , I think the chances of TV election debates happening are somewhere between zilch and nada . Could anything change that? Some suggest that the broadcasters should call David Cameron's bluff and threaten to stage debates without him - "empty chair" him in the jargon . Labour and the Lib Dems hope this will happen . Number 10 is assuming that the BBC wouldn't have the nerve , the other broadcasters will follow its lead , and holding a debate without Mr Cameron might anyway be a breach of the laws about election coverage . A debate between everyone but the prime minister could even suit the Tories when they want to project him as the statesman floating above the fray . A more realistic way to flush him out would be to strip him of the Green figleaf he is using as his pretext for not debating . The broadcasters could redraft their proposal to include Natalie Bennett in one of the debates . Labour, the Lib Dems and Ukip could say that they'd be content for her to participate . I think they would . Labour and the Lib Dems aren't keen on including the Greens , who have been taking votes off both of them , but when it comes to the crunch, they'd rather have a debate with the Greens than no debates at all . Even then, the Tories are so determined to avoid TV debates that they'd most likely concoct another pretext for sabotaging them . But at least everyone would then be crystal clear who is to blame .
[EX A]: At the time of the last election, David Cameron pronounced that TV debates were "here to stay" It was his confident declaration that:"We will have them in every election in the future and that is a really good thing for democracy."

[EX Q]: The Real State of Our Union: More entitlements, taxes and unemployment. In his State of the Union address, President Obama will propose much he knows the Republican-controlled Congress will not enact , but his real agenda is to set the table for Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign . Once again, the president will propose soaking the rich with higher estate, capital gains and bank taxes, while adding to entitlements for the working poor and middle class--new tax credits, higher child care allowance and more college tuition assistance . It all sounds appealing in an economy where the top 10 percent have done quite well , while the rest struggle -- but it is not that simple . The president will argue the economy--and especially the rich-- can afford the taxes he wants because economic growth is so strong -- but that's a fib . Since the recovery began, GDP growth has averaged a mere 2.3 percent a year -- that's about half what Ronald Reagan accomplished climbing out of a recession of comparable depth . Now the recovery faces tough headwinds . Falling oil prices are curbing drilling in places like North Dakota and Texas , and big layoffs are not far behind . The dollar is quite strong against other currencies, limiting exports and boosting job-killing imports , because China's growth is faltering , Japan remains in neutral and Europe is on the edge of collapse under the weight of statism -- the very kind Obama and Clinton want to impose on Americans . The president proposes to legislate the basic contract between employers and workers . On top of higher minimum wages and mandated business financed health benefits, he wants employers to pay for mandatory sick leave and six weeks of paid parental leave . After five years, Reagan increased employment by 9.4 percent , whereas Obama has boosted jobs only 4.5 percent . Consequently , nearly one in six prime working age men between 25 and 54 is not working , and 72 percent of those are not even bothering to look . Obama has made Medicaid, food stamps and social security disability quite easy to get , and idle men form a new leisure class by combining those benefits with handouts from relatives and girlfriends . For employers, a higher minimum wage, compulsory health insurance, and sick and parental leave will make those men even more costly to hire . Enter stage left , more worker replacing robots . The number of young people--and especially young men--starting small businesses has fallen dramatically -- and that means fewer jobs over the next generation for everyone . Young folks start enterprises by raising a lot of capital from older rich people . Wealthy folks take the plunge on risky ventures , because the capital gains tax on successful enterprises is currently taxed at about 25 percent , whereas combined federal, state and local tax rates on ordinary income is often above 50 percent . Young entrepreneurs, who generally have not amassed much wealth, can't borrow nearly what they need from banks . Higher taxes on banks will make that problem worse . Hiking capital gains taxes will directly discourage older successful investors , who also bring a wealth of practical management experience and advice for getting young ventures off the ground . Older rich folks also take the plunge , because they can pass along assets at death to their children . But now the president wants to hike the tax rate on their estates , which is already 40 percent . The president calls it fair because it only falls on one percent of the population, and will paint Republicans who resist as defending the rich to the detriment of struggling Americans . His aim is to give Americans buyer's remorse about electing a Republican Congress and boost a Clinton campaign for the White House emphasizing similar themes . It would seem one out of six men unemployed, subsisting on government benefits and burdening relatives is not too high a price to elect another Democratic president .
[EX A]:
It would seem one out of six men unemployed, subsisting on government benefits and burdening relatives is not too high a price to elect another Democratic president Once again, the president will propose soaking the rich with higher estate, capital gains and bank taxes, while adding to entitlements for the working poor and middle class--new tax credits, higher child care allowance and more college tuition assistance