Input: The side of Malaquez's parcel gave way to reveal a greenmunk caught in a sheen of solid air. Bits of leaf mold flew from under his feet as he ran to greet a friend or a bringer of food. Tasha oohed in awe. I said, "Frodo's been visiting you, eh?" Malaquez said, "Your pet?" "Hardly. He lives around here somewhere. I suppose he was attracted to the commotion up the hill." "Ah," Malaquez said. "Why 'Frodo'?" Tasha said, "A little fellow with big, furry feet. What else could he be called?" She handed the sculpture to me. I almost dropped it; I expected it to weigh no more than a holo. "Heavy," I said, as if he might not have known. He laughed. "My last piece was of four old Undersiders crouched around a trash fire. Be glad someone didn't toss that to you." He spoke of his art with the enthusiasm of a seven-year-old. "Um, I should wait to importune you, but..."
"Where does Frodo get his name?" is "Furry feet"?
Output: yes
Input: Animated history of the US. Of course the cartoon is highly oversimplified, and most critics consider it one of the weakest parts of the film. But it makes a valid claim which you ignore entirely: That the strategy to promote "gun rights" for white people and to outlaw gun possession by black people was a way to uphold racism without letting an openly terrorist organization like the KKK flourish. Did the 19th century NRA in the southern states promote gun rights for black people? I highly doubt it. But if they didn't, one of their functions was to continue the racism of the KKK. This is the key message of this part of the animation, which is again being ignored by its critics. Buell shooting in Flint. You write: "Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before". This characterization of a six-year-old as a pencil-stabbing thug is exactly the kind of hysteria that Moore's film warns against. It is the typical right-wing reaction which looks for simple answers that do not contradict the Republican mindset. The kid was a little bastard, and the parents were involved in drugs -- case closed. But why do people deal with drugs? Because it's so much fun to do so? It is by now well documented that the CIA tolerated crack sales in US cities to fund the operation of South American "contras" It is equally well known that the so-called "war on drugs" begun under the Nixon administration is a failure which has cost hundreds of billions and made America the world leader in prison population (both in relative and absolute numbers).
"What US president is indirectly linked by the author to the Buell school shooter?" is "Reagan"?
Output: no
Input: You may wonder if there are other examples of static discharge. The answer is yes. Lightning is a form of static discharge. It is much more dramatic than what happens between you and the door knocker, but it is the same principle. You can see how it occurs in the following diagram and animation. You have no doubt seen lightning in a rainstorm. What does lighting have to do with static electricity? As it turns out, everything! During a rainstorm, clouds develop regions of different charges. This happens due to the movement of air molecules, water drops, and ice particles. The negative charges are concentrated at the base of the clouds. The positive charges are concentrated at the top. The negative charges repel electrons on the ground below. The ground then becomes positively charged. Over time the differences increase. Eventually the electrons are discharged. This is what we see as lightning. You can watch an awesome slow-motion lightning strike below.
"How does ground become positively charged?" is "The negative charges which are concentrated at the base of the clouds repel electrons on the ground below"?
Output:
yes