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].

[Q]: BRUSSELS/FRANKFURT (Reuters) - The European Central Bank will only stop pumping cash into the euro zone economy when it is confident that inflation is heading toward its target even without its extra help   the ECBâs chief economist Peter Praet  said on Monday.
Praet  one of the architects and sponsors of the ECBâs 2.55 trillion-euro ($3.17 trillion) bond-buying program  was responding to growing calls by some rate-setters to stop the scheme  which has been blamed for fuelling bubbles in the property and bond markets.
 Praet  said that before making any such decision the ECB needed to be confident that inflation was trending toward its inflation target of almost 2 percent and that it could withstand a withdrawal of stimulus.
âOnce the Governing Council judges that the three criteria for sustained adjustment have been met  net asset purchases will expire  in line with our guidance â  Praet  told an event in Brussels.
 He  also added the ECB had not decided yet how to end the asset purchase program  whether gradually or at once.
Asset purchases âcan expire at once or they can expire in a more gradual way. I think this is still one of the things the Governing Council has to discuss â  he  said.
âEven if incoming data were to validate the expectation of a gradual build-up of inflationary pressures  this would not be sufficient to affirm a sustained adjustment  if even less supportive monetary policy conditions were to imperil the inflation trajectory  Praet said.
[A]: Praet


[Q]: In a recent New York Times article  Dr. Willie Parker says he believes “that as an abortion provider  [he is] doing God’s work.” It’s his Christian faith  the author contends  that drives him to abort babies. His “Life’s Work” (as his new book is ironically titled) is to end life for every preborn child that comes before him.
The Jewish people  some of whom later became the first Christians  were to avoid partaking in the practices of the surrounding peoples  who sacrificed their children to appease their gods. Christians have long held that to abort one’s child as an act of worship to the gods of convenience is not permitted by the God of the Bible. But abortion advocates will attempt to play the “he’s a Christian” card by spinning opposition from Christians to imply  Parker  is persecuted within  his  own faith tradition.
The second thing abortion elites love about  Parker  is  his  skin color. Any opposition he faces from white pro-lifers not associated with Christianity can be easily dismissed as bigotry. Sweep under the rug for a minute that even black celebrities are accusing abortion providers in black communities of genocide. While Planned Parenthood’s media arm proclaims support of black lives  its other arm is reaching for a pair of forceps to end life for hundreds of black babies each day.
In the tradition of the black slave owners in the Confederate South  Parker makes his money by breaking the backs (or spines and what-have-you) of others  many of whom share his skin color. He can’t admit that his work (some have called it his “ministry”) hurts his own people or it’d affect his bottom line. Abortion advocates want us all to simply accept that black lives only matter once they’ve had the privilege of being born. This brings us to the final contradiction of  Parker ’s platform.
 Parker  considers  himself  a feminist.  He  believes  he  is bettering the future for females. Don’t think too long about the number of female lives  he ’s ended before they’ve begun. This is nothing new to the insane logic of abortion advocacy. If they can successfully shift our attention off the rights of the life inside the womb to the perceived “rights” the pregnant woman has over her inhabited womb  they’ve succeeded.
 Parker ’s public persona is a farce.  He  parades the myth that  he  has a moral responsibility to “help women” while  he  strips them of their own responsibility to the children they’ve conceived. Christianity places value upon the lives of black women  so much so that it envisions a world in which their lives aren’t ended in the womb. But maybe we’re the ones who are deceiving pregnant women? Perhaps we’re the ones getting rich by volunteering with crisis pregnancy centers and giving away free pregnancy tests  ultrasounds  and diapers.
[A]: Willie Parker


[Q]: Jonathan Swift  we need you more than ever.
This week marks the 350th birthday of the brilliant Irish writer  born Nov. 30  1667. That we know of  Swift  at all is one of the sweetest fortunes of literary history.  His  father died of syphilis before Jonathan was born. A wet nurse whisked him to England for three years. He depended on the generosity of an uncle. He was almost killed by a mail bomb. But despite those precarious turns   Swift  became a poet  a priest  a political operator and  of course  the greatest satirist in the English language.
The longevity of  Swift ’s work is a testament to its potency because no genre fades as quickly: Satires are the cut flowers of literature. Time wilts their wit  fading their bright colors like old political cartoons that poke fun at fat cats we no longer recognize. (Voltaire adored Samuel Butler’s 1663 mock heroic poem “Hudibras ” but try reading it now without footnotes.)
[Jonathan Swift: Not (entirely) the misanthrope you thought you knew]
W.B. Yeats knew what he was talking about when he said of  Swift   “Imitate him if you dare.”
Consider the remarkable persistence of “A Modest Proposal ” published anonymously in 1729.  Swift ’s ironic phrase is such a hardy part of our language that it’s easy to forget how unlikely it is that we’d still be referring to a 3 000-word political pamphlet almost 300 years later. Originally titled “A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country  and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public ” the essay burns with rage at a privileged class willing to ignore and rationalize human suffering. Although the plight of starving Irishmen may be unimaginable to us today  the centuries have done nothing to mute  Swift ’s savage indignation.  He  still sounds as timely as last night’s “Daily Show.”
If you haven’t read “A Modest Proposal” since high school  look it up again and be astounded. Speaking in the voice of a perfectly reasonable bureaucrat   Swift  begins by describing the piteous state of beggars and their children “all in rags  and importuning every passenger for an alms.” In response to this “deplorable state ”  he  announces a solution  “having no other motive than the publick good of my country  by advancing our trade  providing for infants  relieving the poor  and giving some pleasure to the rich”:
Much of Swift’s essay is taken up with various statistics and logistical explanations  a hellacious spreadsheet of infant flesh to lay out the case for utilizing 100 000 children nursed to approximately 28 pounds each. In those well-modulated sentences   Swift  washes individuals and their pain away. As John Stubbs writes in his recent biography   Swift  possessed an “unequalled capacity to endow a ludicrous line of argument with an air of steadfast reason.” The bloody solution of “A Modest Proposal” is easy to laugh off as a bit of grotesque hyperbole  but the real horror of the essay remains its bland  bureaucratic tone — the same sterile language of accounting that justified American slavery  the Holocaust or any scheme that slices human lives into the columns of a ledger.
If politicians haven’t changed their menu much in 300 years  the rest of us still face the same risk of indigestion. Remember that “Gulliver’s Travels” ends with the intrepid narrator isolated and disgusted. Orwell assumed that Gulliver reflected his creator’s morose character and claimed that  Swift  suffered from a “general hatred of humanity” stoked by a perverse obsession with mankind’s sins and weaknesses. Stubbs argues that the image of  Swift  as a “misanthropic monster” is not entirely fair  but Gulliver’s fate is instructive  nonetheless.
Now that we’re all strident critics trading the day’s outrages across Twitter and the dining room table  how are we to avoid being sickened by our own bitter indignation? The bile in a satirist’s mind must be balanced with hope  or the whole enterprise is doomed. Surely   Swift  wouldn’t have bothered to poke fun at cruelty  incompetence and hypocrisy unless  he  believed  on some level  that such scalding exposure could awaken a better nature.
On  his  350th birthday  it’s good to remember that despair is the satirist’s temptation and the citizen’s poison.
[A]:
Jonathan Swift