instruction:
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 Pope Francis Letter is Negative . Well  it’s now happened.  The great scandal of the modern Catholic Church  —  its  tolerance for clergy who abuse children  and  its  laxity when dealing with bishops who themselves tolerated or enabled priest-abusers — now touches directly on  the pope himself .
 It ’s worth laying out the timeline clearly. In 2015  Pope Francis appointed Juan Barros Madrid to the bishopric of Osorno  Chile. The appointment was met with local protests  among Catholics and non-Catholics who believed that Barros was implicated in the crimes of child sexual abuse committed by his friend Father Fernando Karadima  a prominent Chilean churchman who habitually kissed and fondled boys. In the days after the installation of Barros at Osono  Pope Francis told an archbishop that there was “no objective reason at all” to oppose the appointment. The Vatican’s own department governing these matters  the Congregation for Bishops  released a statement saying they had “carefully examined the prelate’s candidature and did not find objective reasons to preclude the appointment.”
In the months following the appointment   Pope Francis  became extremely dismissive of complaints. “Osorno suffers  yes  for silliness ”  the pope  said of the outrage in the media. “Think with your head  and do not be carried away by the noses of the leftists  who are the ones who put this thing together ” he added.
A few weeks ago   Pope Francis ’s visit to Chile was marked by protests  and  the pope  continued  his  extremely brusque dismissal. “The day I see proof against Bishop Barros  then I will talk ” the pontiff said. “There is not a single piece of evidence against  him . It is all slander. Is that clear?”  Francis  said that no victims had come forward to  him . It was apparently this statement that caused Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston to scramble down to Chile and meet with the pope. After O’Malley’s intervention  presumably  the pope issued a half-apology  but repeated that the accusations against Barros were “slander” before adding  “I’m convinced he’s innocent.”
And now the news drops. In the time between the pope’s appointment of Barros and his commentary about protesters being carried away by leftists  members of the Vatican’s own Commission for the Protection of Minors gathered to discuss the appointment. They had a representative hand-deliver a letter to Pope Francis  from Carlos Cruz. The letter alleged  in lurid detail  that Barros had personally witnessed the abuse of Cruz at Karadima’s hands. Members of the commission photographed the hand-off of the letter to  the pope   to reassure Cruz that they were doing everything possible to make his cry for justice heard.
The facts as we know them leave us with a few interpretations. 1)  Pope Francis  simply never read the letter  ignoring this extraordinary intervention by the Vatican’s own commission on a matter of public controversy for  his  pontificate. 2)  Francis  read the letter but forgot about it  reverting to  his  original understanding of the case. 3)  Francis  read the letter  but stuck to  his  decision for Barros  committing unintentional or intentional deceptions about the state of  his  knowledge of the accusations. 4)  He  read the letter  but either doubted the accusations in it  or at least found them so unimpressive that  he  did not decide to follow up on them.
The first explanation would mean that  Francis  was culpably ignorant. The second that  he  may lack the mental or moral faculties to competently govern the Catholic Church. The third that  he  is too stubborn or vain to change course in the face of evidence. And the last that  he  has little trust or faith in the Commission on the Protection of Minors to pass on credible counsel to  him . Perhaps more reporting or disclosure will change our understanding  but none of these are satisfactory.
answer:
no


question:
Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Rand Paul is Positive . The Senate passed a sweeping bipartisan spending bill Friday morning  but not before the federal government shut down when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) delayed the vote past midnight to complain about the budget deficit. It was the second government shutdown in less than three weeks.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Feb. 8 spoke on the Senate floor against a bipartisan budget deal and delayed a vote on the measure. (U.S. Senate)
Then  as an expected vote approached in the Senate   Paul  began to throw up roadblocks  demanding a vote on  his  amendment that would demonstrate how the two-year budget deal breaks past pledges to rein in federal spending.
GOP leaders refused to allow  him  to offer the amendment  arguing that if  Paul  got an amendment vote  many other senators might want one  too.  Paul   in turn  refused to allow the vote to go forward  making use of Senate rules that allow individual senators to slow down proceedings that require the consent of all.
“I can’t in all good honesty  in all good faith  just look the other way because my party is now complicit in the deficits ”  Paul  said on the Senate floor as evening pushed into night.
 Paul  objected after a visibly irritated McConnell tried to move to a vote. Then  Paul  launched into a lengthy floor speech deriding bipartisan complicity on deficit spending while the country goes “on and on and on  finding new wars to fight that make no sense.” The senator direly predicted a “day of reckoning ” possibly in the form of the collapse of the stock market.
As the hours ticked on   Paul  repeatedly refused to consent to allowing the vote to happen  as lawmakers and aides of both parties grew increasingly annoyed at  him . Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.)  leaving the floor after an unsuccessful attempt to curtail  Paul ’s standoff  called the gambit “grossly irresponsible” and said that leaders would not entertain  his  demand for a vote.
Senators of both parties were left fuming  with most of their ire directed toward  Paul .
“ He  has mastered the art of ticking off  his  colleagues ” said Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.).
“It’s a colossal waste of everybody’s time ” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.). Of  Paul   Thune said  “He never gets a result.”
 Paul himself  made no apologies as  he  delivered one floor speech after another  casting  himself  as a lone defender of fiscal austerity  despite having voted in December for a tax bill that added at least $1 trillion to the debt.
answer:
yes


question:
Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Hammond is Negative . MANCHESTER  England (Reuters) - British finance minister Philip Hammond defended capitalism as the only route to prosperity on Monday  in an attempt to counter the opposition Labour Partyâs increasingly popular vision for a more centrally-controlled economy.
In a speech to the ruling Conservative Party that contained only two new policy announcements   Hammond  also said that the governmentâs immediate task was to deal with the uncertainty for citizens and businesses resulting from Brexit.
 Hammond   who was sidelined by May during the election campaign  said last weekâs Labour Party conference showed it wanted to impose on Britain  the worldâs fifth largest economy  the âsocialist fantasyâ seen in Cuba  Venezuela or Zimbabwe.
âWe saw Labour in the raw  exposed for what it has sadly become: a party taken hostage by a clique of hard-left extremist infiltrators  people who despise Britainâs values and talk down our country â  Hammond  told Conservative Party activists.
Seeking to put the economy center-stage in the Conservativesâ pitch to voters   Hammond  said Britain could only hope to experience rising living standards âby harnessing the power of the market economyâ.
With opinion polls showing Labour gaining support   Hammond  aims to convince voters that Corbyn would make them poorer.
Labourâs leaders   he  said  âopenly proclaim their ambition to demolish our successful modern market economy and replace it with a back-to-the-future socialist fantasy with hundreds of billions of extra debt for the next generation to pay.â
âOur economy is not broken: It is fundamentally strong â  Hammond  said  while also accepting that a lack of progress in talks on Britainâs divorce settlement with the European Union and uncertainty over future ties were weighing on businesses.
âThe process of negotiating our exit from the EU has created uncertainty so investment has slowed as businesses wait for clarity â  Hammond  said.
 Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond  speaks at the Conservative Party's conference in Manchester  Britain October 2  2017. REUTERS/PHIL NOBLE
Business groups welcomed Hammondâs defense of free markets  but said the government needed to do much more.
 Hammond  pledged 400 million pounds ($535 million) of additional road and rail spending and 10 billion pounds of funding to help young Britons get on the property ladder.
âWe must never deny or dismiss the underlying concerns that the election articulated: we must listen to them and we must respond â  Hammond  said  adding that the government should offer âpragmatic solutionsâ to improve ordinary peopleâs lives.
But with Brexit on the horizon  a slowing economy and the Bank of England hinting that interest rates could rise  May and  Hammond  have limited room for fiscal maneuver.
Labour said Hammondâs speech on Monday was disappointing.
answer:

no