instruction:
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.
question:
North Korea: An 'act of war' over a movie? At his press conference on Friday, President Barack Obama said that Sony "made a mistake" by not releasing its film "The Interview" on schedule . He said:"We cannot have a society in which some dictator some place can start imposing censorship here in the United States." The dictator in question is North Korea's Kim Jung-un . Sony acted following both a major hack of its computer files and, more ominously, a threat that any US showing of the comedy film that culminates in the assassination of Kim, could produce another 9/11 type attack . The threat was issued on December 16 by an outfit calling itself, the "Guardians of Peace" , which also claims to have been behind the hack attack on Sony . It promised a "Christmas gift" for the American people . Within 48 hours of the threat, and following pleas by companies owning most of the cinemas in the US, as well as by the shopping centres in which the cinemas are situated, Sony pulled the film , which is quite a coup for whoever orchestrated the assault on the company . The original hack cost Sony an estimated $170m while withdrawing the film will cost the company another $45m it cost to make plus whatever the film would have taken in at theatres and from home release . This is a big deal . It is worth noting that it is not 100 percent positive that Pyongyang is behind the Sony hack or the 9/11 warning . Yes, the FBI asserts (with its customary assurance) that North Korea is guilty on both counts but leading cyber security experts say (with equal certitude) that the evidence of North Korean responsibility is sketchy at best . As for the North Korean regime itself, it flatly denies any involvement while at the same time issuing threats against the US that are even more blood curdling than the one issued by the "Guardians of Peace" (who may or may not be the North Koreans themselves) . Whoever the culprits are, they did not inflict major damage on the US . Contrary to those who are screaming that by pulling the film, the US surrendered the concept of freedom of speech , it is not the US government that pulled the film . In fact ,  Obama said that if Sony had talked to him first, he would have told the company to show the film as planned . But Sony did not talk to Obama because its decision to withdraw the film had nothing to do with the US or its national interests but with the financial interests of the multinational corporation itself . Multinationals do not, for reasons implied in the very term multinational, act with an eye on any flag . These are businesses and profit, not patriotism, is their guide . It is, therefore, ridiculous to accuse the US of yielding to the threat of a foreign dictator . It didn't . Sony did and , from the point of view of its shareholders, it probably did the right thing . Losing $45m in production costs for "The Interview" is nothing compared to Sony's potential liability if some catastrophe occurred at a showing of the film in Los Angeles or Washington, DC . This is not to say that there are no foreign policy implications of this debacle . Sony's decision to make a comedy about the assassination of the North Korean head of state was a terrible idea that has only worsened the US' already terrible relations with this very unstable nuclear-armed nation . If reports that a State Department official read the script and approved of the assassination scenario are true , that is troubling . Driving an already unbalanced head of state off the deep end is clearly not something diplomats should sign off on . Of course ,  certain elements in the US government want to see an increase in tensions with North Korea, and maybe even an attempt at "regime change" . Although Obama was careful to say that North Korea's purported actions constituted "cyber vandalism" but "not an act of war" , Senator John McCain, who becomes chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee next month, said on Friday that it is indeed an act of war to which the US must respond . Former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich agrees , as do eager warriors in both political parties, those who promoted war with Iraq and now oppose a nuclear deal with Iran . Those two countries are, of course, charter members of former President George W Bush's original "Axis of Evil" regimes that he and his allies wanted eliminated . The third member was North Korea .
answer:
At his press conference on Friday, President Barack Obama said that Sony "made a mistake" by not releasing its film "The Interview" on schedule


question:
Five ways Obama could make Castro pay Cuba's $6 billion debt to Americans. In his half century reign of terror, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro committed manifold atrocities . Documented evidence reveals him to be a ruthless tyrant who endlessly abused the most basic of human rights -a man who played a pivotal role in bringing the world to the precipice of nuclear annihilation for 13 harrowing days in October of 1962 . Beyond his crimes against humanity and the callous suffering he inflicted on the people of Cuba, he ruined the lives and livelihoods of thousands of Americans . He stole their land, homes, bank accounts, possessions and businesses . He absconded with their property under the guise of "nationalization." But he is, in truth, a thief . Will his victims now be fairly compensated or otherwise see the return of their confiscated property in the wake of America's first steps toward rapprochement with Cuba? The answer is both legal and political . President Obama holds the key . So, don't get your hopes up . The Theft . In the first half of the 20th century, Americans and U.S  businesses dominated Cuba . They accumulated vast holdings of property and operated many of the most lucrative businesses . All of that ended with the Cuban Revolution in 1959 . Castro "nationalized" U.S.-owned industries and seized much of the island's private property from Americans . There was no restitution . One legal scholar called it the largest uncompensated expropriation by a foreign government in history . The U.S  retaliated with an embargo, prohibiting all trade . But the Americans who were expelled from Cuba were left holding titles and deeds to homes and businesses to which they had no access . Their property rights were dissolved , and any legal judgments obtained were unenforceable against an isolated nation that refused to recognize any authority other than its own . Thousands pursued legal recourse and sought reparations under indemnification programs established by Congress . Others filed lawsuits and secured judgments . But Castro didn't care . He repudiated the legitimacy of the restitution programs, the valuation of losses and the legal authority of the courts . This , even though Cuba admits their renegade nationalization was, and is, compensable . So what , then ,  does Castro consider fair compensation? Judging from his payouts to other aggrieved nations, it is mere pennies on the dollar . How do you value dirt? In 1961, the U.S  Commerce Department valued American property seized by the Cuban government at roughly $ 1 to 1.8 billion . Nearly 6-thousand claims were legally certified . Other published reports placed the theft as high as $ 9 billion . But the truth is, it's impossible to know -especially inasmuch as the value of everything plummeted the moment Castro took control of the island . What would the same confiscated properties be worth in today's dollars? $50 billion? $100 billion? How about nothing at all? Given how the Castro brothers have driven their economy into the ground, making Cuba one of the poorest nations in the world , valuation could be closer to dirt than dollars . Which invites another question : assuming a monetary value could somehow be devised, how would Cuba pay for it? With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Castros lost their financial benefactor . The island is blighted and broke . Even if it offered government bonds as compensation , are they worth the paper upon which they are written? How could they be secured? Reclaim the property? Theoretically, it is possible for the confiscated property to be reclaimed someday by the original owners . But that would require a dramatic Cuban transformation from socialism to democracy where private property ownership is permitted . In a recent speech, Cuban President Raul Castro insisted Cuba would not renounces its core socialist ideals as part of the deal he negotiated with President Obama to renew diplomatic relations . Even if some semblance of democracy were to be restored to Cuba in the distant future , what remains of the stolen property? No one knows how many of the private residences that were seized have been divided or fallen into decay . Some may no longer exist . And what of the current occupants? Would they allow themselves to be kicked out? The same may be true of the many farms, industries and commercial businesses that were confiscated and have been put to other uses in the last 5 decades . Yes, they have development potential in an open, free market society . But ,  again, the future of Cuba is nebulous . How realistic is the return of these vast holdings under a continuing Castro regime? What Obama should do . As a first condition to normalizing relations, President Obama should demand that all American victims of stolen property be compensated equitably . He is already obligated by law to do this under the Helms-Burton Act . But Obama has a propensity to ignore or overrule with impunity those laws he regards as misguided or inconvenient . This is one law he should follow . A second condition should be the establishment of a commission of judges with legally binding authority to render compensation decisions . Several reparation models can be studied and replicated, notably the tribunal that dispensed claims in post-unification Germany . President Obama has the power and leverage to force the Castro regime to capitulate if Cuba wants to end the sanctions and restore economic relations . But so far, he has uttered not a word about a desire to do so . And when it comes to negotiations with adversaries, Obama tends to give away the store .
answer:
Beyond his crimes against humanity and the callous suffering he inflicted on the people of Cuba, he ruined the lives and livelihoods of thousands of Americans


question:
Zero suicides is an admirable aim but it requires all-out change. On Monday, Nick Clegg pledged to sign up the NHS to a national "zero suicide" campaign . This comes in a week when I have spent a lot of time talking to the media about depression in an attempt to get people to support Calm and the other charities that are doing incredible work to help people coping with mental illness . I have appeared on national radio, in the press and on television to talk about my story , but the more coverage I get, the more I ask: why me? Let me make this clear . I am not famous , I am not trying to be famous . I am a normal lad who made mistakes, lived a lie, and eventually attempted to take my own life . I am just another statistic . Someone who suffered from an illness that took over my life and made me a person I didn't recognise . There is absolutely nothing special or unique about me . Yet I am getting calls from people asking me to share my story . The fact that I am newsworthy, simply because I have spoken openly about the demons I was facing, makes me think that we are being greatly let down by society . Suicide is the biggest single killer of men aged 20-49 in the UK . It's a statistic that, no matter how many times I say it, continues to shock me to the core . Yet it's something that few people seem to be talking about openly, if at all . I get it, we're British . Sometimes we don't like talking about things that make us uncomfortable . Sometimes we'd rather not ask the question because we can't handle the answer . But that simply cannot continue . It's time that people are made to stand up and face the harsh reality . The fear of being judged is preventing people from talking about their secret turmoil . There is very little being done by the people who have the biggest influence to remove those fears, remove the stigmas, to get people talking about mental health, and make people comfortable with the subject . The media doesn't just have influence, it has a responsibility to help communicate a message and set an agenda . Yes, things are changing , but it can't be right that the furthest we've come is having someone receive live therapy on air with Phillip Schofield or a soap character crashing a minibus . There is too much box-ticking going on . A petition signed, a campaign joined, an empty promise in an election year . All very good but what do they actually do? Do they help save enough lives? The system needs changing from top to bottom . There is no consistency or urgency, despite the high rate of men dying from suicide . What bigger wake-up call do you need? I would ask David Cameron to speak up and tell us what he is going to do . To meet me, to let me introduce him to the small team at Calm, the volunteers, the campaigners, the people on the end of phones with someone's life in their hands . Let me show him people who feel as if they have nowhere to turn . Let me show him the lack of knowledge of some people working in GP surgeries, and the pressure that those who make a positive difference are working under, as rates of mental illness increase continually . Let me show how so little can make such a big difference . If Nick Clegg is serious about mental health then he needs to show it . It's great that he has decided that we need to aim for zero suicides but I wonder, what was the aim before this? Just a few suicides? A hundred? Shouldn't the aim always have been zero? The likes of Calm, Mind, The Samaritans and everyone else, are doing incredible work but it shouldn't be left to them to do it all alone . They can only work with the limited resources they have . They need supporting and backing . We need to put faces and voices to genuine experiences . Speaking out about dealing with depression shouldn't be considered a "brave" act ; it shouldn't be an extraordinary or unusual story to read . It should be common . It should be accepted . It should be normal . But while we live in a society that doesn't know how to deal with it, and perhaps does not want to deal with it, we cannot expect people to talk openly about such private matters . Much focus is placed on those who are suffering , and rightly so , but in order to truly help them, we need to make everyone else comfortable and knowledgeable enough to know what to do, how to act, and know how to signpost people to the help that is out there . We need to be talking about mental illness in schools . We need to make in-depth training compulsory in the workplace . We need to be training taxi drivers, bar staff, hairdressers - people who will find out more about a person through a casual conversation than their friends will ever know . We need to normalise talking about the realities of depression, to normalise conversations about the very real prospect of suicide - it is the only way we can move forward together . We need a radical change from top to bottom . Therapy isn't just about lying on a couch while someone writes down your childhood memories . It's about feeling comfortable enough to say you're not OK .
answer:

On Monday, Nick Clegg pledged to sign up the NHS to a national "zero suicide" campaign


