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.

As they make a final push to approve presidential nominations before Republicans take control of the Senate, Democrats said Tuesday the confirmation of a record number of federal judges was evidence they were right to make controversial changes to filibuster rules, despite objections from Republicans. "Yes," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid responded loudly when asked if still believes he was right to employ the so-called "nuclear option" a year ago in order to clear a backlog of nominees. The No. 2 Senate Democrat explained that at the time there was a "breakdown in the relationship between the executive and legislative branch." "If you just look at where we were, with all of the nominations stacked on the calendar, most of which had been reported from committees with overwhelming bipartisan votes," Sen. Dick Durbin said.  "Republicans were trying to keep as many nominations from final approval as possible. So we had no choice." During the first year of the congressional session, before the nuclear option, the Senate confirmed a total of 36 federal district and circuit court judges appointed by the President.  After the rules changes, which took place Nov. 21, 2013, the number of judges confirmed more than doubled to 84. The rules change lowered the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster from 60 to 51, making it much easier for Democrats, who currently have a 54 to 46 majority, to approve judges to those lifetime positions. Before the Senate adjourns, probably in the next day or two, Democrats hope to confirm an additional 12 district court positions. Democrats this week also cleared a new surgeon general, a top immigration official, and were ready to approve Tuesday the No. 2 at the State Department. Each of those people faced serious GOP opposition and might not have been cleared if not for the rules change. "The train is running over everyone. That's the Reid train. Last trip around the track," complained Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona about the last minute wave of judicial and executive branch nominations Senate Democratic Leader Reid is jamming through. "It's a result of the nuclear option which deprived us of our ability to advise and consent and it's shameful. McCain and other Republicans also blamed Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and a small group of other conservatives who forced a weekend session that Reid used to clear procedural hurdles on a number of nominees. "It was also caused in part by what happened last weekend when several nominees who are controversial are now going to receive Senate votes and are probably going to be confirmed who otherwise probably would not have been," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.
Democrats say they have no regrets over changing the Senate rules to approve more judges .
Republicans, who will take control of the Senate in January, are upset with the maneuver .

(CNN) -- There are no easy answers when journalists have to decide how to cover a terrorist group's video. The issue resurfaced Tuesday when a member of the Islamic extremist group ISIS was shown on camera beheading American journalist Steven Sotloff. No major news organization showed the gruesome conclusion of the ISIS video, but many did show screen grabs and short video clips of Sotloff and the executioner, as well as another hostage that ISIS is threatening to kill. The video is newsworthy -- even if it also plays into the propagandistic hands of the people who produced it. But a vocal flock of viewers and readers -- and some fellow journalists -- have deplored the decisions to show snippets of the video, reprising arguments that were made in August when news organizations showed screen grabs of James Foley, another American journalist who was beheaded by ISIS. "Can't believe this bears repeating, but one should not empower ISIS by publishing their PR materials," freelance journalist Jeb Boone wrote on Twitter after the Sotloff video emerged. One major international broadcaster, Al Jazeera, said it had decided not to show any images of Sotloff from the video -- a more conservative position than other television networks. "We suggest all media do the same," Al Jazeera's public relations account said via Twitter, using the hashtag #ISISmediaBlackout. Not showing the video at all, however, risks sanitizing the grim reality of the world. So most media outlets tried to strike a balance. ISIS "would like us to show you the most graphic images on that video, as part of their campaign of terror. We will not," CBS News anchor Charlie Rose said as he introduced a segment about Sotloff's death. Instead, CBS showed only video clips from it. Media figures also tried to demonstrate some self-awareness when dealing with the issue. "No way to avoid leading the show with ISIS butchery and yet, maddeningly, that also seems like what ISIS wants," Chris Hayes wrote on Twitter before his 8 p.m. MSNBC program. Newscasts tended to show more photos of Sotloff in the field, reporting on stories throughout the Middle East, than of him as a hostage. But screen grabs from the video were still widespread, including on CNN's homepage and television networks. The Foley video surfaced on the social media website Diaspora, as reported by INSITE, a blog on terrorism and extremism run by the SITE Intelligence group. It was later put on YouTube and promoted via Twitter. The Sotloff video was discovered on an unidentified file-sharing website by the SITE Intelligence Group, which researches terrorist threats. Perhaps that's why social media reactions to the Sotloff video were more muted -- or perhaps, terribly, it's because the shock value was diminished the second time around.
No major news organization showed the conclusion of the ISIS Steven Sotloff video .
Some viewers, readers and journalists have deplored decisions to show snippets of it .
"One should not empower ISIS by publishing their PR materials," a journalist tweets .
Not showing the video at all, however, risks sanitizing the grim reality of the world .

San Diego, California (CNN) -- You're a mean one, Mr. Gingrich. Well, not really. Those of us who know Newt Gingrich tend to describe him as not only intelligent but also charming. Some members of the Washington press corps will admit as much, even though they usually don't agree with Gingrich's views. No matter. Facts shouldn't get in the way of a good smear. And at the moment, the left is trying to dampen the appeal of the former House speaker and current GOP presidential front-runner by likening him to a green and hairy Dr. Seuss character who tries to steal Christmas. Only in the real life version, Gingrich is supposedly at war with the poor for saying this: "Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works, so they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday." That narrative was front and center again this week as Gingrich explained his remarks to reporters gathered at a New York press conference, emphasizing that he believes the secret to getting America working again is to teach some Americans how to work. "I've been talking a little bit about the importance of work," Gingrich said, "particularly as it relates to people who are in areas where there are public housing where there are relatively few people who go to work." At one point, Gingrich turned the tables on the reporters and asked them a question. He wanted to know, "How many of you earned some money doing something before you were 10 years old, whether it was cutting grass or babysitting or something?" Talk to hugely successful people, Gingrich said, and most of them will say that they got an early start learning about jobs and responsibility and earning money for their labor. Tragically, that's not happening with many young people today. Gingrich pointed out that, for instance, among African-American teenagers, the unemployment rate is a staggering 43%. Now, you can spin a statistic like that one of two ways. You can say these unemployed black teenagers are helpless victims and the system is working against them. Or you can say that many of these teenagers are unemployable because no one ever taught them the skills necessary to hold down a job. Gingrich thinks government should have a hand in creating a "pathway to work" so "people get in the work habit and learn the skills to be successful." Bravo for Newt. Politicians don't usually speak this way, which is why so many of them have mastered the art of talking for hours without saying anything of importance. I can't imagine Mitt Romney saying these things; he's too busy telling people what they want to hear to tell them what they need to hear. This subject is as important as they come, and Gingrich deserves credit for kicking off the discussion, especially since he was sure to be pummeled for stating the obvious. Here's the obvious: Americans have lost their work ethic, and some never had one to lose. They grow up -- or put more precisely, they're raised -- thinking of so many jobs as beneath them that they wake up one day not knowing how to do any job. Gingrich was right on the money. But I would go further than he did. This isn't just a problem for black Americans; it's a problem for all Americans. In fact, as someone who speaks to groups all over the country and who spends a fair amount of time visiting high schools and colleges, I worry less about students from poor families who lack resources and opportunities than I do about those from the upper-middle class who lack passion and purpose. Poor kids often have a fire in their belly, a desire to improve their lot and help their parents. Upper-middle class kids can be harder to motivate, especially if they've never been taught to work by their parents. You think I'm kidding. I remember once seeing a 21-year-old struggle with how to hold a broom and sweep the floor. It wasn't his fault. No one had ever taught him how to do that chore -- or any other. Whenever I write about young people and the jobs they won't do, I hear from dozens of employers with stories of their own. The common theme in all those e-mails is that we've been too soft on our kids and haven't demanded enough from them, something we hardly notice because we've allowed illegal immigrants to pick up the slack. Parents used to make their children work after school, or on weekends, or during summer break, to earn extra money to buy what they wanted. They gave them a list of chores to do to earn their allowances. No chores, no allowances. Today, parents find it easier to skip the chores and buy their kids what they want, which is no good for anyone and no good for society. You know what is good? This conversation, and others like it. No subject this important should be off limits. After all, how do we fix a problem if it is considered taboo to even mention it? Newt Gingrich had the courage to mention the problem of America's vanishing work ethic, and emphasize the need to restore it. And for that, Americans should be thankful. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ruben Navarrette Jr.

Newt Gingrich said poor teens don't see people working so don't learn work habits .
We have lost our work ethic, Navarrette says. Not just poor kids: richer kids lack purpose .
Navarrette: Gingrich got in hot water talking about it, but it should not be a taboo subject .

