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 Rex Tillerson is Negative . (CNN) This past weekend at the Aspen Security Forum  the rumor mill was working overtime on the idea that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was seriously considering resigning   if not immediately then by the end of the year.
We have written a number of pieces about  Tillerson 's travails -- some self-inflicted but most undeniably a result of the stunningly idiosyncratic and harmful way the President's statements and tweets have gummed up the foreign policy machinery.
 Tillerson  has indeed had a rough time. Having worked for and seen our fair share of secretaries of state come and go  we've never witnessed anything like this. Usually a president will designate the secretary of state as his voice and the key repository of authority on foreign policy. And whether the President chooses to empower the nation's top diplomat on the big issues somewhat (Hillary Clinton) or all the way (Jim Baker)  the secretary is the primary adviser to the President on foreign policy.
We understand  Tillerson 's frustrations. But we'd also respectfully argue that    however stacked the deck may be against  him    Tillerson  shouldn't quit. And here's why.
And to do so   Tillerson  would need a very compelling reason that would not only make sense to  him   but would also protect  his  public reputation and credibility. Vance left because of his profound opposition to Carter's decision to launch an almost certainly doomed military mission to rescue the American hostages in Iran. Frustration with the bureaucracy  unhappiness with the President's governing style or pique over a backbiting White House just aren't compelling reasons commensurate with the status of the job.
Right now  based on everything we know   Tillerson  just doesn't have one such reason. And an early out  particularly for a guy who took the job claiming he wanted to serve his country  would damage his reputation and add a sad coda to the end of his State Department stewardship.
It's true that the headlines for  Tillerson  don't look all that good. He may have a great deal of contact with the President and have been the one Trump chose to attend the meeting with Putin on the margins at the G20  but unless the President makes it clear that the Secretary is his main adviser on some issue and  Tillerson  steps up to take charge of it  he's not going to be seen as having much influence.
 Tillerson  has a small army behind  him  to put out diplomatic fires and manage crises. But like any good general  to achieve the mission  he  needs to delegate authority and trust  his  subordinates.
It's not just that  Tillerson  has been undercut from above;  he  has also not been well served from below  but this is a self-inflicted wound. The secretary is squandering his most precious asset -- the immensely talented  intelligent  experienced  hardworking and capable people who man the trenches at Foggy Bottom.
News flash: the bureaucracy at State is not the enemy  so  Tillerson  should stop treating it like one.  He 's trying to run the department in a highly centralized and tightly controlled manner like Jim Baker. It worked for Baker because  he  had the horsepower in  his  inner circle.  Tillerson  is not as fortunate.
Instead   he  should emulate the more decentralized and inclusive management model of George Shultz  who empowered the other senior officials in the department to take the initiative and backed them 100% even when they stumbled. If  Tillerson  gives these officials the authority  support and tools they need to do their job  they will help  him  and the department to be more effective.
 His  successor could be worse
As ineffectual  at times  as  Tillerson  has been  it cannot be assumed that things couldn't get any worse under new management. For all his stumbles  the Secretary of State has gotten a few big things right. He has  for example  been a soothing voice in reassuring US allies  particularly Japan and South Korea of America's defense commitments. He has developed a good relationship with Secretary of Defense James Mattis -- and on some issues (even though he's lost on a couple  like US withdrawal from the Paris accord on climate change)  he has moderated some of Trump's worst instincts  such as walking away from the nuclear deal with Iran. He's also talked tough on maintaining existing sanctions on Russia  which may have helped stiffen the President's resolve as well.
There's no guarantee that his successor will play well with others  hand-hold the allies rather than throw bombs at them or elevate diplomacy  engagement and dialogue with difficult countries rather than adopt confrontational policies that offer little prospect for success but significant risks of escalation. For all those who hope to wish Tillerson an early and happy retirement  be careful what you wish for    especially if  his  successor is more ideological and combative and less pragmatic than the more even-keeled Tillerson.
 Tillerson  does not have a small ego.  He  doesn't want to be the answer to the question in a game of Trivial Pursuit of which Secretary of State holds the record for the shortest tenure in the modern era. And from  his  many years as a world class negotiator   he  should have a sixth sense for when to hold and when to fold. Now is not the time to fold.
answer:
no


question:
Verify if the sentiment of the following document towards the entity Dee Dee Myers is Positive . White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers  is among what  she  said are about 10 percent of the 1 044 White House staff members who have not completed the FBI clearance process that produces the first level of clearance for access to classified material.  Myers  said  she  has routine access to secret material.
Last week House Republicans raised the issue of White House officials failing to complete the clearance process.  Myers  acknowledged that  she  had not  due to the press of other business  and said that only one other senior official fit that category. That is Ricki Seidman  who has served as deputy communications director  as a counselor to the chief of staff and now as head of the scheduling operation.  She  did not return phone calls.
 Myers  said  in clarifying the numbers of those lacking clearances  that of the 125 most senior jobs at the White House  all but 15 have completed the FBI background checks and have security clearances. All National Security Council staff members fit that category   she  said.
But of the White House staff overall  which includes workers from secretaries in the social secretary's office to computer operators  a little more than 100 lack the clearances. "Most of them don't have a need to deal with secure documents "  Myers  said. But  she  could not estimate how many have access to such documents or could see them if they tried.
 Myers  said the slowness of the White House to hire its staff  the slowness of staff members to submit paperwork that launches the FBI background check and plain "procrastination" are the reasons for most of the clearance problems. "Things got off to a slow start "  she  said  but added that with congressional -- and press -- attention on the issue  the White House staff is making a strong effort to comply.
"By next week there will be almost no one left" who has not submitted paperwork to begin the process   she  said. Officials said White House lawyer William Kennedy and others repeatedly had urged non-complying officials to complete the clearance process  but the warning frequently was ignored. Lloyd Cutler  the new White House counsel  said yesterday he takes the problem seriously.
answer:

yes