Write a question from the passage such that it identifies a character (a person or a thing) in the passage.

[Q]: This is part two of a four part series on Inner Wisdom Eating (IWE)
The 4 steps of Inner Wisdom Eating (or eating like a thin person) are exactly the same as those promoted by Intuitive Eating.
Eat when you're hungry
Eat what you want
Eat consciously
Stop when you are full
The difference lies in the approach and the detail. I will discuss each step in this four part series.

EAT WHAT YOU WANT
DOES YOUR FOOD SING TO YOU?
Have a look in your fridge and cupboards. Does the food in there sing to you, does it call your name, and are you looking forward to eating it? Do you eat it because you enjoy it or because you think you should?
By choosing only to eat what sings to me, I have discovered (again!) that I am not a big fan of meat and would rather eat a predominantly vegetarian diet. Occasionally I'll eat chicken leg and I love bacon but beyond that I'm not fussed.
FOOD DOES NOT HAVE A VALUE
There are no good and bad foods. There are no trigger foods or forbidden foods. There is nosuch thing as junk. There is a place in your diet for your favourite indulgences in moderation. Believe me that when you let yourself eat cheesecake, chocolate and hot chips, the novelty soon wears off. I mostly eat unprocessed food, not because it's "good" but because I love the taste and prefer how it makes me feel.
YOU CAN STILL EAT DIET FOOD
Low fat ice-cream, Diet Coke and protein powder are still in my diet but I eat them because I prefer the taste over their 'real' counterparts. I can still ask for dressing on the side and no butter on my sandwich not because I'm counting calories but because I can't see the point in eating food I don't actually want.
[A]: Who says he or she eats mostly unprocessed food because he or she loves the taste?

[Q]: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis promised Thursday the Pentagon will "notify" Congress before any possible military action in Syria, where the U.S. is considering responding to a suspected chemical weapons attack.

"There will be notification to leadership, of course, prior to the attack," Mattis said in his testimony at the House Armed Services Committee. "We will report to Congress. We will keep open lines of communication."

But notably, Mattis did not indicate the Trump administration would seek congressional approval before the strike, which presumably would target the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Trump says the U.S. will soon launch "nice and new and smart" missiles in response to last week's suspected poison gas attack, which left scores dead in a rebel-held area. Trump blames Assad for the attack.

A U.S. attack is likely to upset a small but growing number of U.S. lawmakers who demand President Donald Trump first ask Congress to authorize any hostilities, citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a federal law intended to check the president's ability to wage war.
U.S. presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have long argued they have legal authority to order airstrikes and other short-term military campaigns if those engagements fall short of the "hostilities" mentioned in the War Powers Resolution.

Additionally, U.S. presidents have cited a pair of authorizations by Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks as justification for the near-constant U.S. strikes on Islamic militants around the world.

The Trump administration has used those authorizations as justification for its current war in Syria. The U.S. has 2,000 troops in Syria, and helps lead an international coalition against Islamic State in Syria and neighboring Iraq.

The overwhelming majority of U.S. lawmakers have not publicly objected to the administration's legal rationale for those missions. But as Trump considers expanding the U.S. war to include attacks on Syrian government targets, some in Congress are speaking up.
[A]: Who will keep open lines of communication at the House Armed Services Committee?

[Q]: "Hey, guy."
"No, this is Ray." He smiled, leaned back in his chair.
It was, of course, Pete. Pete was the night shift guy at Crossroads Detox across town. Ray called it the Jesus Shop because it was wholly supported by a contingent of local churches who saw addicts as a potential ministry.
Apparently Jesus saved--not only from sin and hell, but also from Dark Eyed Jim Beam.
Pete was a relatively innocuous born again fundie who volunteered his time two or three nights a week. When he was not saving the world, his Clark Kent was actually a steady CPA job with the local H&R Block. He'd been pulling shifts for about six months, knew nothing about drugs beyond that bad people used them to escape their problems and that they were tools of Satan, and he always needed Ray's advice about one thing or another. This arrangement was not problematic as Pete had long ago given up trying to convert him. Pete was also the only guy in the city who was, as Ray figured it, making less money than he was at such an hour. In return for Ray's magnanimity, Pete had done Ray's taxes for free last year.
They had never actually met, though Ray had faxed him the tax forms and Pete had faxed back a photo of his two pre-teen daughters and his geriatric Lab.
"What's the problem?" Ray asked.
"I have a recalcitrant."
That's what he called them, the drunk and definitely disorderly. Pete's vocabulary did not include the word shithead either in its singular or plural.
"Pete, they're all like that. Alcohol is bad medicine. That's why places like ours are in business. To make them calcitrant."
"I know that." Pete sounded a little annoyed.
There was some commotion in the background, a knocking on doors.
[A]:
Who calls the drunk and disorderly recalcitrants?