In this task, you are given news articles and you need to generate a highlight, i.e., a short summary, with a maximum length of 10 lines.

[EX Q]: (CNN) -- Jeff Yeager says the economic downturn is an opportunity for people to simplify their lives and be content with less. More than 40 percent of the average household food budget is spent on eating out, says Jeff Yeager. The author of "The Ultimate Cheapskate's Road Map to True Riches" has some ideas for saving $20,000 to $30,000 a year. The savings don't necessarily require sacrifices, he says, but rather choices that can lead to greater happiness. Yeager talked with Heidi Collins on Tuesday on "CNN Newsroom." A transcript of their conversation follows. Heidi Collins: How did you become a cheapskate, if you will? Jeff Yeager: Well, you know, I'm about 50 years old. I grew up in the Midwest, and back then, spending money was really a last resort. We led sort of a simpler life, and I think, in a lot of ways, happier, Heidi. And that's really what I write about is, maybe there's a silver lining to this economic downturn. Maybe we can simplify our lives, be content with less and actually enjoy life more. Collins: All right. As a fellow Midwesterner, I share your cheapskate thoughts already. Yeager: You are a sister of the cheaphood. I knew it, Heidi. Collins: Well, hey. I do wonder, though, as you've gone through this process, if you will, if you become the ultimate cheapskate, are you noticing now a lot more people kind of joining your club? Yeager: You know, they are. And again, I don't really talk about a life of sacrifice. I talk about a life of choices and how, in many instances, less can be more.  Watch Jeff Yeager explain his savings suggestions » . You know, in this economy, we hear a lot of stories about how to get more stuff for 20 percent less. I'm not saying that's unimportant. But maybe we're missing the real point. The secret to the time is being content with less. Collins: OK. Wow. I like the way you talk. All right, so let's get to these five things, because that's what everybody really wants to hear about. Specifically, what they can do. And again, this is in order to save 20,000 to $30,000 a year. Really? Yeager: If these things apply to your family. Collins: OK. Yeager: And they are -- let me say in advance -- these are some fairly radical changes. But, again, it's probably not about sacrifice. It's about changing your life and maybe in the end being happier. Collins: OK. Well, very good. First thing you say, give up your cell phone. Yeager: Give up the cellulite life. I will use myself as a poster child. You know, I have a fairly successful career, a very happy life. I've never owned a cell phone, and nothing awful has ever happened. Collins: Now, wait a minute. I've got to push back for a second, because a lot of people will tell you you can be happier with a cell phone because you're out of the office and you're with your family more, still able to still do business. Yeager: We can debate all that, but 10 or 15 years ago, none of us had it, and nothing awful happened. It seemed to me we were really quite happy. Average cell phone plan costs about $100 a month. There's an interesting article in the recent Christian Science Monitor that shows the actual cost of using a cell phone could be more than $3 a minute by time you factor in unused minutes and so on. Collins: Wow. All right. You say you might not need that second car and certainly not the third? Yeager: Americans own about 2½ cars per family. Can you give up one? The Auto Club says it costs about, on average, $1 a mile to drive a car by the time you factor in the cost of the car, depreciation and so on. So, you could easily be talking about $5,000 to $10,000 savings by sharing the remaining car that you have, using public transportation and so on. Collins: OK. Give up meals prepared outside your home. Quit going out for meals no matter what, if it's just a salad or a fancy fancy dinner? Yeager: More than 40 percent of the average American family household food budget is spent on meals prepared outside the home. You can cut that by 80 percent by cooking those same meals at home and you know, maybe recapture some family time around the dinner table. Collins: Yes, there would be people who would argue with you about that, though, too, because our culture is just so socially oriented to food. Every dinner, every business meeting, every lunch. Yeager: We're too busy to cook because we're too busy earning the money to spend it by dining out. Collins: Yes, yes. All right, you also say quit shopping for new clothes. Yeager: Yes. Here again, it's what's good for your pocketbook and good for the environment. Less than 2 percent of clothes that we throw away in America are worn out. The average family spends about $1,800 on clothing. Certainly most of us have more than enough stuff in our closet that we could go six months, even a year without buying new clothes. Collins: Yes, and then maybe just get it tailored or updated or something. Accessorize, I don't know, right? Yeager: And again, less than 2 percent of the clothes we throw away are worn out. That's a waste of the Earth's resources. Collins: All right. And finally, give up college room and board. You want the kids to live at home forever? Yeager: This is a big one, you know? Back in my day, if you have a child in school, consider having them live at home while they go to school. It's been a huge generational shift. Back in my days, lots of people, including myself, lived at home when we went to college. Therefore, we didn't take out any college student loans. Now, of course, most kids go away to school, take out student loans. When they graduate, what do they do? They move back home with mom and dad! Let's skip the money step!
[EX A]: Author Jeff Yeager says radical changes can lead to big savings .
Lose your cell phone and give up second or third car, Yeager says .
Families spend more than 40% of budget on eating out, so cook at home, he says .
Quit shopping for new clothes, and have kids live at home while at college, he says .

[EX Q]: (CNN)  -- It seems that now someone called "Barack Hussein Obama" can be pulled aside and patted down merely because of his name. But while our president has the benefit of Air Force One, millions of us with a "funny name" (Muslim and otherwise) do not. Like me. I've consistently faced "random" selections for extra screening at the airport after I decided to wear the hijab, or Muslim head covering. I've been told to take my head scarf off or have my head probed while the passengers in front of me offered pitying smiles as they rushed to their flights. One time, the woman in front of me had a hairdo that could pose more of a security threat than any head scarf could. Muslim women wear the hijab as a symbol of modesty, to be judged not by their appearance. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed that people would be judged for "the content of their character." However, the Transportation Security Administration  is judging me and other Muslims by the way we look. The TSA uses the hijab to profile Muslim women, and passengers can now expect a full-body pat-down, an appallingly invasive "enhanced pat-down search  that could include the chest and groin, or a planned "mind-scan"  that would track people's reaction to terrorist symbols. What's next, palm reading? At an airport with a full body scanner, I can have the image of my body displayed before a stranger -- virtual nudity.  Do they seriously have a blank check on our bodies? Of course I care about profiling partly because I'm affected. But does one have to face this issue to feel that it's wrong? After all, it is difficult to imagine ourselves in other people's shoes when we don't have to. It's hard for me too. Especially over the past month, I've been shocked at the comments about my faith, and the sometimes-prejudiced support for racial profiling. Radio host Mike Gallagher said, "There should be a separate line to scrutinize anybody with the name Abdul or Ahmed or Mohammed." Sorry Paula Abdul and Muhammad Ali, or anyone with the world's most common name, Muhammad. For people who aren't affected by racial profiling at airports, imagine this: The TSA implements a new rule to counter drunken driving, which kills over 13,000 Americans every year. People who are not Muslim have to go through a Breathalyzer test before they can enter their vehicle. Muslims don't drink alcohol and are, therefore, exempt. Ridiculous? I agree. I know that what I am going through is just the tip of the iceberg of racial profiling in our country. Thirty-two million Americans report that they have been the victims of racial profiling. Racial profiling violates the U.S. Constitution, is ineffective and trickles down to the workplace, schools and elsewhere. You also run into problems when you justify profiling nearly one in every four people in the world. There are Muslims of every possible race, making profiling practically futile. Fareed Zakaria said  it best: "When you're trying to find a needle in a haystack, adding hay does not help you." Putting ethical and pragmatic reasons aside, it's hard to justify not caring. Even if racial profiling doesn't affect us, it affects our friends, family members, co-workers, doctors, television personalities --  the list goes on.   There are some people who don't know Muslims and are numb to realizing the effects of profiling. Therein lies the problem. According to the Pew Research Center, people who know Muslims are less likely to have negative views of them. Co-existence is a dismal possibility unless people go to the source to find out about Islam, not skewed Web sites. And Muslims, here's something to think about: If your knowledge of Islam came from common stereotypes, wouldn't you also be misinformed about the faith and its followers? The Quran says, "[God has] made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another (49:13)." So get to know your fellow Americans. There are some Americans who think Muslims are terrorists and some Muslims who think that other Americans are willfully ignorant. Neither group deserves such a label. Psychologist Henri Tajfel, who was a Holocaust survivor, explained  how we isolate ourselves into an "in-group" and facilitate discrimination of an "out-group." Religious profiling boxes Muslims into a category separate from Americans. We can't accept that distinction. Let's all think outside of the box. It's essential for U.S. security that airport screening be done. But we need to stop the inflation of procedures that make our society more afraid and less secure. The TSA needs to stop and evaluate methods that are more effective, less invasive, and don't discriminate based on religion or race. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Nafees A. Syed.
[EX A]: Nafees Syed: Millions face extra screenings at airports for having "funny names"
Syed says she has been singled out for extra screening  because of Muslim head covering .
She writes that racial profiling violates the U.S. Constitution and is ineffective .
Syed: We need to know one another and stop procedures that make us more afraid .

[EX Q]: (CNN) -- Millions of people are expected to go to Washington to celebrate Barack Obama's inauguration on January 20, but with a troubled economy and pocketbook issues on the mind, the president-elect must be careful to set the right tone. Construction of the inaugural stand continues in front of the White House last week. President Bush raised a record $42.8 million dollars for his second inauguration, and according to Public Citizen, more than 90 percent of the donations to that ceremony were from executives or corporations. But this year, some say throwing a multimillion-dollar party would be unseemly in a time when crash, bailout, and foreclosure fill the economic headlines. "A lot of it is about tone and making sure that the celebrations that do take place are not over the top, that they don't appear to be insensitive to the pain people have right now," said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. The inaugural committee for Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden has pledged to make sure the ceremony underscores the incoming administration's "commitment to change business as usual in Washington." The Presidential Inaugural Committee has limited individual contributions to $50,000. There is no law restricting the size of donations, but in the past, inaugural committees  have set contribution limits as high as $250,000. The PIC said it will not take contributions from corporations, political action committees, current federally registered lobbyists, non-U.S. citizens or registered foreign agents. Obama has promised to "take power away from the corporate lobbyists" -- a pledge that would be questioned should the president-elect rely on them to foot his inauguration bill. "If he can pay for these parties with small donations, I think there'd be a lot more acceptance of that," Alexander said. Watchdog groups say there are some things Obama can do to take control of the tone. For example, he could make donations to charity, and Michelle Obama could opt for something more reasonably priced than a designer dress. When Franklin D. Roosevelt took office, he also faced a financial crisis. He gave voters a now famous pep talk about the failing economy, then skipped the fancy inaugural balls because they sent the wrong message. But analysts say Obama's not expected to go that far because so many people want to celebrate his historic win. "Washington, D.C., was pro-Obama and had Obama-mania long before November 4. But the moment November 4 occurred, all -- all craziness sort of broke loose," said Anne Schroeder Mullini, a gossip columnist for Politico. As inauguration organizers work to keep the tone in check, they are speaking out against those trying to make money by scalping tickets to the event. Tickets for the inauguration are distributed through members of Congress, and just 240,000 seats are available for the actual swearing-in ceremony. The tickets are supposed to be free, but with demand outpacing supply, a traditional giveaway has turned into a thriving online marketplace. Legitimate ticket brokers -- the same companies that peddle tickets to rock concerts and NASCAR races -- are selling tickets to the inauguration for thousands of dollars, even for standing-room areas on the National Mall. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein wants to make that practice a crime, punishable by up to a year in prison. Organizers of the inauguration say it violates the spirit of the event and could spell disappointment for people who buy tickets for the ceremony. "We think it's absolutely insane to be selling those tickets. We understand some people want to make a buck, but for those people thinking of buying tickets, it's buyer beware," warned Howard Gantman, staff director of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. CNN's Carol Costello, Brianna Keilar and Erica Hill contributed to this report.
[EX A]:
President Bush raised a record $42.8 million dollars for his second inauguration .
Barack Obama has limited individual donations to $50,000 .
Some say an extravagant celebration would be out of place, considering economy .
Inauguration organizers say ticket scalping violates the spirit of the event .