Q: WHITE HOUSE President Donald Trump, after a tactical retreat this week on immigration policy, demonstrated Friday that there is no strategic shift to his overall tough approach to those attempting to illegally enter the country, and vowing to "end the immigration crisis, once and for all." U.S. immigration laws, Trump declared, are "the weakest in the history of the world." Trump made the remarks in an auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House, where he presided over an event with so-called "Angel Families," those who have had relatives killed by people who entered the country illegally. "Your loss will not have been in vain," the president told the families, who held large photos of their slain relatives. "We will secure our borders the word will get out. Got to have a safe country. We're going to have a safe country." Trump called family members to the presidential lectern to recount how their loved ones had been killed by those who were in the United States illegally. Several of those speaking condemned the media for ignoring the stories of the victims and praised Trump and Vice President Mike Pence for their attention to border security. Crime assertion Trump, in his remarks, also suggested those illegally in the United States commit more crimes on a statistical basis than citizens or resident aliens. However, studies have shown that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit a crime in the U.S. than native-born citizens, including one published by the libertarian CATO Institute this year. Following intense domestic and international condemnation, Trump on Wednesday signed an order ending his administration's practice of separation of children from their families while parents were being prosecuted for crossing the border illegally. The administration's recently implemented "zero tolerence" policy led to the criminal prosecutions of undocumented border crossers, which in turn led to federal officials separating adults and their children. For how long did each Angel Family member probably speak at the Friday event? - Only a few seconds - Around 5-10 minutes - not enough information - Close to one hour
A: Around 5-10 minutes

Q: Cerberus just stared at me. The dog didn't blink, he didn't pant, he didn't move. He just sat in the passenger seat as I drove, relaxed, mouth hanging slightly open, looking at me the way someone examines a menu but can't decide on the chicken or the veal. The desert sky was on fire when the city came into view. Cerberus turned away from me and stuck his head out from the side of the jeep, his giant tongue flapping in the eighty mile an hour wind while I dialed Luna's number. The dog pulled his head back in, then rested his chin on top of the overhead roll-bar, his fur blowing back along his head like the spines of a porcupine. "Hello?" "Hey, Luna." "Dingo! Are you there yet?" "No, not yet. I'm just outside the city." Vegas flashed and blinked under the starless sky. "You get in touch with Mr. Waciejowski?" "Sure did. He's at the Denny's near the Excalibur. He's trying to stay away from the blackjack tables." "Yeah, good for him. He has the box?" I could hear Luna stuffing something disgustingly healthy in her mouth. "Mmm hmm." "He hasn't opened it, has he?" She swallowed. "Nah. I told him it was filled with old photos." Cerberus shifted in the seat and scratched behind his neck with such force that the whole Jeep shook; a rather unsettling motion at 80 miles an hour. "Hey Luna, I've got a question for you." I looked over to see the dog's nostrils flared out in the wind while his lips blew back and revealed his frightening set of teeth. "This, uh, this animal spirit guide you had me try to find. Do they ever show up, you know, in person?" Who did the narrator call on his phone? - Luna - Cerberus - Mr. Waciejowski - not enough information
A: Luna

Q: Every so often I see a scenario play out that I find rather disappointing. It works like this: someone posts a topic to their blog that is critical or controversial. This person can either be a community member, commentator, employee or otherwise; it doesn't matter who the person is. Then what happens is a series of comments are posted to that blog entry from readers that are critical of the post, thus challenging the author on their views. The author then either deletes the blog entry or disables the comments based on the feedback. In other words, a viewpoint is shared, an invitation for comment is provided, but that invitation is then revoked when the author of the blog post is dissatisfied with the response from their readers. I have seen this happen countless times over the years and I don't like this. I believe we should all be accountable for our words. Our words have the ability to inspire, to entertain, to challenge, but to also hurt. Actions have consequences, and so do words. As such, when I see someone openly share their thoughts on their blog and invite their readers to provide comments, I see that as a wonderful demonstration of accountability and engagement; debate is a beautiful thing when executed with politeness and respect. To then close that door, seemingly because people disagree with you, is in my mind the equivalent of walking out of a room in the middle of a debate. The excuse when folks are criticized of this behavior is typically "it is my blog and I can run it how I like". This is true: it is your blog, and you can run it how you like, but the true measure of a person is not just in what they say, but also in the conversation and discourse that follows. After the end of the story, the author is probably: - not enough information - reading blogs - writing - iriitated
A: reading blogs

Q: And once again, high blood pressure is making headlines in the news: the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) have just released new guidelines about hypertension. Since this development is likely to cause confusion and concern for many, I'm writing this post to help you understand the debate and what this might mean for you and your family. By the way, if you've read any of my other blood pressure articles on this site, let me reassure you: I am not changing my clinical practice or what I recommend to others, based on the new AHA/ACC guidelines. The core principles of better blood pressure management for older adults remain the same: * Take care in how you and your doctors measure blood pressure (more on that here), * Start by aiming to get blood pressure less than 150/90 mm Hg, as recommended by these expert guidelines issued in 2017 and in 2014, * And then learn more about what are the likely benefits versus risks of aiming for more intensive BP control. Perhaps the most important thing to understand is this: treatment of high blood pressure in older adults offers "diminishing returns" as we treat BP to get lower and lower. Scientific evidence indicates that the greatest health benefit, when it comes to reducing the risk of strokes and heart attacks, is in getting systolic blood pressure from high (i.e. 160-180) down to moderate (140-150). From there, the famous SPRINT study, published in 2015, did show a further reduction in cardiovascular risk, when participants were treated to a lower systolic BP, such as a target of 120. However, this was in a carefully selected group of participants, it required taking three blood pressure medications on average, and the reduction in risk was small. As I note in my article explaining SPRINT Senior, in participants aged 75 or older, pushing to that lower goal was associated with an estimated 1-in-27 chance of avoiding a cardiovascular event. (The benefit was even smaller in adults aged 50-75.) How does the AHA/ACC probably feel about hypertension? - They don't agree with the guidelines - They think it's very confusing - They want to find a cure and help educate others - not enough information
A: They want to find a cure and help educate others