instruction:
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.
question:
(CNN) -- Move over, Emma. There's a new queen in town. Isabella dethroned Emma as the top name for girls born last year, according to the Social Security Administration's annual list of most popular baby names, released Saturday. Jacob, on the other hand, held on as the most popular boy's name for the 11th year in a row. The Social Security Administration started compiling name lists in 1997. And as in years past, the influence of pop culture is reflected in the names picked for newborns. The boy's name that rocketed up the list the fastest is Cullen -- the name of the lead character in the popular "Twilight" book series. Cullen's girlfriend in the books is Bella, short for Isabella. On the girls' side, the fastest riser is Maliyah, an altered version of the name of President Obama's daughter Malia -- which also is among the top 10 fast risers. But parents are equally quick to drop celebrity-inspired names once they think the popularity is passe. Among the biggest drops last year were Mylee and Miley, as in singer Miley Cyrus. Also on the outs: Lindsay and Jonas (think actress Lindsay Lohan and the band Jonas Brothers). Meanwhile, Barack continued to move up the list. Sixty-nine Baracks were born in 2009, the agency said. As always, religious names retained their popularity -- even if some were somewhat unconventional. Among the popular names are Nevaeh (heaven spelled backward) for girls, and Messiah for boys. The 10 most popular girls' names, in order, are: Isabella, Emma, Olivia, Sophia, Ava, Emily, Madison, Abigail, Chloe and Mia. The 10 most popular boys' name, also in order, are: Jacob, Ethan, Michael, Alexander, William, Joshua, Daniel, Jayden, Noah and Anthony.
answer:
Isabella has replaced Emma as the most popular name for newborn girls in U.S.
Jacob remains most popular name for baby boys for the 11th year in a row .
Cullen became popular, inspired by the character is the "Twilight" series .
Lindsey and Jonas are on the outs .


question:
(CNN) -- Chester Nez, the former Marine and last of the original 29 Navajo code talkers, passed away June 4 at age 93. When an elder dies in Indian country -- especially someone as revered and decorated as Nez, the World War II veteran -- we, Native Americans, feel it, all of us, regardless of tribe or nation. We are also reminded that, not long ago, in the 19th and 20th centuries, Native American culture, including our languages, was considered a threat to U.S. national security. Then, the government worked in collusion with Christian institutions to stamp out Native American languages, including Navajo. "A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one," Capt. Richard Pratt famously read from a paper at an 1892 convention. "In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man." Pratt was the founder of the Indian boarding schools, institutions charged with turning the "red Indian" into the "noble savage." Native Americans: We're not your mascots . Chester Nez attended one of these schools as a child, and was punished when he spoke Navajo. One can't help but think that, had it not been for the resilience of the Navajo people and their resistance to these early oppressive American policies, it's quite possible that World War II could have ended differently. Without the use of the Navajo language that was once discouraged by American policy, the U.S. military could have lost a distinct advantage over its enemy. Nez's death is a reminder that America's strength lies in its diversity. Native Americans, who have not always been included in the American story, should be remembered and honored for their contributions. Before the arrival of the Europeans, there were between 300 and 500 unique languages spoken throughout what is now the United States and Canada. Today, there are fewer than 200, and that number will continue to decrease if North American indigenous language revitalization efforts aren't considered paramount to the continuity of Native American communities by the United States. Opinion: NFL may throw flag on N-word, but what about the 'R-word'? Recently, a neighbor and I were discussing Native American languages. He was curious why more Native American elders "don't just pass on the language to the next generation." I told him that many of said elders still suffer from the trauma they experienced in the Christian boarding school system, and remembered what Ruby Left Hand Bull told me recently. "They'd pierce your tongue if you spoke your language!" my elder recalled. "Or they'd make you stand in front of the classroom and they'd tell you to stick your tongue out and then they'd whip it with a wooden ruler, just for speaking our language." Ruby knew our Lakota language growing up, she said, and very well. But she has lost it, she said. She understands it, but it's all but left her, courtesy of the boarding schools. I told my neighbor, who said he was a third-generation Italian-American, that his people's language could die in New York, but there is no threat that it will become an extinct language any time soon. "There are more Italians speaking Italian every day right across the Atlantic," I said. "You could board a plane or hop a ship today and travel to your home country and hear your people's language reverberating off Italian walls. We, Native Americans, don't share in that luxury. This is it. This is our home country. Our languages are invariably on the brink of extinction, especially since we are 1% of the population. So when a Native American language dies, it's forever gone." Our elders tell us that when a language dies, so, too, does the culture. But all is not lost. There are various campaigns to revitalize Native American languages. The state of Colorado, for example, passed a law stating that Native Americans who speak their language can teach it to students for credit at secondary schools under the category "World Languages." Maybe one day all Native Americans will, again, be fluent speakers of their language -- just like Chester Nez, the warrior. Indeed, the world would be a richer place for it. My hope is that when President Barack Obama visits with our Native American leaders this month at Standing Rock, North Dakota, he will be reminded of the significant contributions of Native American peoples like Chester Nez. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Simon Moya-Smith.
answer:
Simon Moya-Smith: The death of original code talker Chester Nez is a significant cultural loss .
Nez attended boarding schools that discouraged the use of his Navajo language .
Author: Native American elders say when a language dies, so does the culture .
Without the use of the Navajo language, the U.S. military could have lost a war, author says .


question:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Tuesday announced a troop deployment shift for America's two wars, a move that reflects a more stable Iraq and an increasingly volatile Afghanistan. President Bush said Tuesday that he soon will start bringing some U.S. troops home from Iraq. Through early next year, about 8,000 American troops will leave Iraq and not be replaced. Some 4,500 other U.S. service members will go to Afghanistan. Bush also emphasized the U.S. intention to help Pakistan defeat insurgents who are using the country's tribal areas to stage attacks in Afghanistan. "Iraq, Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan pose unique challenges for our country," Bush said Tuesday in a speech at the National Defense University in Washington. "Yet they are all theaters in the same overall struggle." Bush said he is making the Iraqi troop withdrawal decision based on a recommendation from top military officers, including Gen. David Petraeus, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer in Iraq.  Watch Bush announce the troop reduction in Iraq » . "He and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have recommended that we move forward with additional force reductions," the president said, citing military and political strides in stabilizing the country and dramatically bringing down violence. Bush adopted the entire recommendation from Petraeus, a senior military official in Iraq told CNN. The source said five people saw the plan before it went to the president. Debate the Iraq issue! Join The Forum . In explaining progress in the war effort, Bush cited the "surge" offensive, winning the hearts and minds of Sunni tribes, Iraqi political reconciliation efforts, economic improvements, an improved Iraqi army leading the fight against Shiite and Sunni insurgents, and a return of hundreds of doctors who fled the fighting. "Over the next several months, we will bring home about 3,400 combat support forces -- including aviation personnel, explosive ordnance teams, combat and construction engineers, military police and logistical support forces," he said. "By November, we will bring home a Marine battalion that is now serving in Anbar province. And in February of 2009, another Army combat brigade will come home. "This amounts to about 8,000 additional American troops returning home without replacement. And if the progress in Iraq continues to hold, Gen. Petraeus and our military leaders believe additional reductions will be possible in the first half of 2009." At present, there are about 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. An adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki welcomed Bush's decision. "We look at this step as a positive step that there is stability in Iraq, there is a real improvement in the security situation in Iraq and there is a real improvement in the capability of the Iraqi security forces in protecting and keeping the security in Iraq," said Sadiq al-Rikabi, al-Maliki's political adviser. Democrats were less than enthusiastic about Bush's announcement. The plan "may seem to signal movement in the right direction," but it "defers troop reductions until the next administration," said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Missouri, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "More significant troop reductions in Iraq are needed so that we can start to rebuild U.S. military readiness and provide the additional forces needed to finish the fight in Afghanistan." Skelton said Iraq "cannot continue to overshadow other critical U.S. security needs." "The effort in Afghanistan must move to the forefront and once again become our top priority," he said. Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama praised Bush for announcing additional troops for Afghanistan and "moving in the direction of the policy that I have advocated for years." However, "we will continue to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq while the Iraqi government sits on a $79 billion surplus," Obama said. "In the absence of a timetable to remove our combat brigades, we will continue to give Iraq's leaders a blank check instead of pressing them to reconcile their differences," he said. Obama criticized the timing and scope of Bush's move. "His plan comes up short -- it is not enough troops, and not enough resources, with not enough urgency," the senator from Illinois said of Bush's call for more troops in Afghanistan. In his speech, Bush praised other members of the U.S.-led coalition, saying many of those nations will be able to end their deployments to Iraq this year. He said Australia has "withdrawn its battle group" and Polish troops are "set to redeploy shortly." The president said Iraq and the United States will work "toward the conclusion of a strategic framework agreement and a status of forces agreement," pacts that will spell out the terms of their relationship. "These agreements will serve as the foundation for America's continued security support to Iraq once the United Nations resolution authorizing the multinational forces there expires on December 31." Bush focused his remarks just as strongly on Afghanistan, where al Qaeda and Taliban militants have been making a comeback. "For all the good work we have done in that country, it is clear we must do even more," he said. "As we learned in Iraq, the best way to restore the confidence of the people is to restore basic security -- and that requires more troops." He said that a Marine battalion of around 1,000 will deploy to Afghanistan in November instead of Iraq and that an Army combat brigade of around 3,500 will go in January. Bush said the U.S. would make additional forces available in 2009 and called on allies to increase their force levels. Bush said stepped-up insurgent efforts in Afghanistan have necessitated the increase of U.S. troops from "less than 21,000 two years ago to nearly 31,000 today." He said these troop increases and those by allies, including Britain, France, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Australia, Germany, Denmark and the Czech Republic, have resulted in what he calls a "quiet surge" in Afghanistan. Bush described challenges in Afghanistan that don't exist in Iraq. "This is a vast country," he said. "Unlike Iraq, it has few natural resources and has an underdeveloped infrastructure. Its democratic institutions are fragile. And its enemies are some of the most hardened terrorists and extremists in the world." He said Americans will help develop Afghan security forces and are improving efforts on the civilian side, adding more personnel to deal with issues of diplomacy, development, the rural economy and the fight against the drug trade.
answer:

NEW: Sen. Barack Obama, House Armed Services chairman criticize scope, timing .
NEW: Iraq views decision as "positive move," aide to Iraqi leader says .
Iraq force to be trimmed by 8,000; Afghanistan force to rise by 4,500 .
President Bush cites increased stability in Iraq, stronger insurgency in Afghanistan .