Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

HARI SREENIVASAN: Former Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. pleaded guilty today to spending $750,000 dollars in campaign funds on personal items. The Illinois Democrat appeared in a federal district court in Washington. He had resigned from Congress last November, after being treated for bipolar disorder. Jackson will be sentenced in late June. His wife, Sandra, also pleaded guilty today to committing tax fraud.

The Obama administration is launching a new strategy to fight cyber-theft. The plan announced today includes a diplomatic effort to discourage intellectual property theft abroad. It also calls for better coordination to help U.S. companies protect themselves.

At a Washington briefing, Attorney General Eric Holder said the damage done by economic espionage is growing.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, United States: The stakes have never really been higher. In some industries, a single trade secret can be worth millions or even billions, billions of dollars. Trade secret theft can require companies to lay off employees, close factories, to lose sales and profits, to experience a decline in competitive position and advantage or even to go out of business.

HARI SREENIVASAN: The announcement came on the heels of a report by a Virginia cyber-security firm. The findings directly accused the Chinese military of hacking more than 140 companies in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Japanese investigators have found that a lithium ion battery in a Boeing 787 Dreamliner was wired incorrectly. That word came today from Japan's transport safety board. An All Nippon Airways plane was forced to make an emergency landing last month when the main battery overheated and started smoking. That incident and others prompted the worldwide grounding of all Boeing 787s. Meanwhile, wire service reports said that Boeing is ready to offer a temporary fix to the battery problem.

11 scientists from the U.S., Japan and the Netherlands are the inaugural winners of the world's richest prize for medicine and biology. They were chosen today to receive the -- quote -- "Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences" worth three million dollars each. That's more than double the amount of the Nobel Prize. Four Internet leaders, including Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, teamed to establish and fund the annual award. They said their goal is to focus attention on scientists doing vital research.

Wall Street took a hit today. Stocks fell on indications that the Federal Reserve might slow or even stop its economic stimulus efforts. The Dow Jones industrial average dropped 108 points to close at 13,927. The Nasdaq fell 49 points to close at 3,164.

Those are some of the day's major stories -- now back to Gwen.

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

GWEN IFILL: One of the Supreme Court's most junior members, Sonia Sotomayor, steps from behind the black robe to tell the story of her rise from an impoverished childhood to the nation's premier bench. The memoir is "My Beloved World."

I sat down with the justice after the court handed down decisions today to talk about how her life informs her jurisprudence.

Justice Sotomayor, welcome. Thank you for joining us.

JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, U.S. Supreme Court: Thank you for having me here today.

GWEN IFILL: In your book, you write an interesting thing, which I just want to read back to you.

You say: "I was 15 years old when I understood how it is that things break down. People can't imagine someone else's point of view."

I would like to start there. Explain what you meant by that.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, I think the book does that.

I was talking there, I believe, about an incident involving one of my places of work that included my aunt, because I worked in her shop -- she didn't own it personally, but she worked there as well -- and about how they thought they were playing a prank on a family by having the supervisor call the home to tell a false story, that the husband in the home was having an affair with her.

And I was in a state of shock that neither my aunt, who I loved dearly, or the other women, whom I respected on so many levels, couldn't imagine what havoc they were causing in that home. And I see that pattern repeating itself so often when people do things without imagining the impact it's having on the other person.

And it was a lifelong lesson. I spend so much of my life sort of thinking about, what are other people thinking?

GWEN IFILL: It certainly comes in handy for a judge to be able to look at ...

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Absolutely. But I don't think it's just for a judge.

I think it's for anybody in any life situation. If you don't imagine what the person you're speaking to might be thinking, you can't anticipate how that's person is reacting to you.

GWEN IFILL: You have now been on the court how long?

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Oh, it's my third-and-a-half year.

GWEN IFILL: Wow.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And it's sort of -- you just said wow. It's what I feel each passing year. It flies by.

GWEN IFILL: I want to talk to you about your first year that you write about here in the book. I wonder if you would just read the part I have outlined there.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: "The first year that I face the challenges of any new environment has always been a time of fevered insecurity, a reflexive terror that I will fall flat on my face. In the self-imposed probationary period, I work with compulsive intensity and single-mindedness until I gradually feel more confident. Some of the looming panic is no doubt congenital. I often see in my reaction something of my mother's irrational fear of being unequipped for nursing school. I have gone through the same kinds of transition since becoming a judge, first on the federal district court, then on the appeals court, and finally on the Supreme Court."

GWEN IFILL: OK, let's -- you don't look like a person prone to reflexive terror, but tell me about that.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But I am, Gwen.

Just what the book describes, which is, in every new experience, I'm anticipating the worse, and doing everything humanly possible to master the situation -- well, first to learn it, to understand what in my environment means and what it needs to be successful.

It's not something that -- and this is what the book is talking about to every reader. We're not born anything. We're not born a lawyer. We're not born a judge. We're certainly not born a justice, which is something that Justice John Paul Stevens reminded me during my first year on the bench one day, when I was actually disclosing to him how anxiety-ridden I was about being a justice.

And he just touched upon a reality for me. He said, "Sonia, none of us is born a justice. We grow into becoming one."

GWEN IFILL: Have you grown into it?

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Not yet, but I'm growing.

GWEN IFILL: Not yet?

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Not yet, but I'm growing.

GWEN IFILL: That's good that we see it all ahead of you.

One of the things you write about also in the book is your learned habit for building bridges and seeing bridges where other people see chasms. Talk about that.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, that's also part of the lessons that I share in the book, which is, if you build bridges and not chasms, if you don't build that sort of pool in front of you, but look at ways of sort of connecting with others, rather than seeing your differences, that you accomplish so much more.

GWEN IFILL: That seems like kind of anathema in Washington.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm told it is.

GWEN IFILL: Just you're told?

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'msmiling because, remember, I just got to Washington three-and-a-half years ago.

But I think it's really a life lesson, which is if you approach life looking immediately at how people or situations are different, you're never going to find a solution to a problem.

GWEN IFILL: I want to talk to you about affirmative action. It is something that you support, that you speak of, of...

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Be careful about using that word.

GWEN IFILL: OK. Be careful. You have court cases which may come before you.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: No, it's not just that, though...

GWEN IFILL: What is it? Tell me.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: ... which is, it's that people approach everything in life with its worst, and I do something very different in life. I try to find the best in everything. And if you try to find the best in people, they will usually rise up to your expectation.

GWEN IFILL: Well, there is ...

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And if you look for the worst, you're going to find it, because there is no perfect thing.

GWEN IFILL: The reason I ask you that question is because -- that is a perfect example. Some people look at affirmative action as it's come to be known and they think of it as a crutch, as a negative, as a scar. And you don't.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, some forms of it.

If you look at some other forms of it, quota systems, which our court years and years ago said was a bad thing and struck that down, there are forms of anything that can be bad. But there are ways of doing almost anything that can be positive and good. And if you look at affirmative action as I experienced it in the earlier parts of my years, as only a challenge to institutions not to limit their looking to those fora that they were used to, you know, everybody finds it very deeply comforting to look for people in the places that they think are going to produce the candidates they want, not realizing that there are people with the same skills, the same abilities, and perhaps the same promise in other places, then you're not going to have as much diversity if you're looking only in one little corner of life.

If you're willing to say, you know, there are capable students, capable potential employees that come from a lot of different backgrounds than the ones I'm accustomed to, well, if you think that way, that I have to look more broadly, then you might have a more diverse population in your schools and in your workplaces.

GWEN IFILL: As you were writing this book, you were forced to kind of think about your personal beliefs and your personal upbringing and your personal grounding, and blend it with your professional path, which has been, I think, by -- without argument, fairly successful.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Thankfully.

GWEN IFILL: How do you draw that line? Do you draw a line?

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Do I draw a line between how I rule as a judge from my personal experiences? Absolutely. Every judge has to.

Every judge comes to the bench with personal experiences. If you assume that your personal experiences define the outcome, you're going to be a very poor judge, because you're not going to convince anybody of your views. You have to be a judge that is able to step aside and determine when their personal bias is influencing the way they're thinking about a case.

You're not a very good judge if you're incapable of that. And, in fact, I have spoken previously about the fact that, as judges, we have to be sensitive to that. We have to know those moments when our personal bias is seeping in to our decision-making. If we're not, then we're not being very good judges. We're not being fair and impartial.

But that doesn't mean that our personal experiences can't permit us and don't permit us to see arguments that others might miss. It's a sort of fine walking that we're always doing between, when are we listening with an open mind and when has our mind been closed because of a bias?

GWEN IFILL: I have to ask you one final question which is -- comes out of the news. During your confirmation hearings, you said that you didn't -- you thought it was a grand idea, a good idea -- you had experience with cameras in the court.

Now you're rethinking that now that you're actually on the bench.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Keep an open mind about everything, including that.

And I haven't made up my mind finally. But I'm now beginning to see the other side of the arguments.  

GWEN IFILL: It helps being in the room, doesn't it?

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: It certainly does, on so many different levels.

GWEN IFILL: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, thank you so much for joining us.

JUTICE SOTOMAYOR: Thank you.

GWEN IFILL:You can find more of my interview with Justice Sotomayor, including why she thinks the idea of women having it all is silly, online.

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF:Now to our weeklong series on guns, violence and mental health concerns in the wake of the Connecticut shootings.

Tonight, NewsHour science correspondent Miles O'Brien explores emerging questions about mental health and what may be happening in the brains of rampage killers.

The reporting was done as part of a broader NOVA program airing tonight.

Both are part of PBS' special weeklong coverage called "After Newtown."

MAN: There you go, that's it.

MAN: Andy was always real playful.

MAN: There you go. Take the turn.

MAN: He was a real kind kid.

MAN: Hi, Megan. Hi, Andy.

BOY: Hi, daddy.

MILES O'BRIEN: How did the sweet kid in the home movies become the murder suspect on the 6:00 news?

REPORTER: As you said, mostly students and parents meeting up with one another, and I'm sure so shocked that they just want to see which other friends are out there.

MILES O'BRIEN: What made Andy Williams, then 15, walk into a boys room at Santana High School in Santee, Calif., and open fire on his schoolmates, killing two and injuring 13?

JEFF WILLIAMS, Father of Andy Williams: See, this one I think is eighth grade.

MILES O'BRIEN: His father, Jeff, is haunted by the question.

So, he wasn't a kid that was infatuated with violence?

JEFF WILLIAMS: No, not at all. You have the silly clown. That's the thing. You don't expect the silly clown to do something like this, to go kill people.

MILES O'BRIEN: The class clown.

JEFF WILLIAMS: The class clown would be the class killer.

MILES O'BRIEN: The mind of a rampage killer can live behind the face of the boy next door. Can science shed any light in these darkest of dark places? There is not much data to go on. From Columbine through Newtown, in most cases, the shooter ends up dead, either by his own hand or by police.

But Andy Williams is one of the few living school rampage shooters.

AUTOMATED CALL RECORDING: This recorded call is from an inmate at a California correctional facility.

MILES O'BRIEN: He called me collect from a pay phone inside the Ironwood Prison in the middle of the Southern California desert. Andy Williams is now 27. He has spent 12 years behind bars.

Take us back to that moment, and if you can tell us what was going on in your mind at the time, that would really help us.

ANDY WILLIAMS, Convicted Murderer: To me, it was just like a numbness at the time. You know what I mean? And like I couldn't really -- like, at 15, I didn't really think, like, all that stuff through. I didn't think two boys were going to die. I didn't think 13 people were going to get shot. I just thought I was going to make a lot of noise and that the -- and that the cops were going to show up.

JEFF WILLIAMS: This is the county all-star team he was on for baseball.

MILES O'BRIEN: He was a good baseball player, huh?

Andy had moved from Maryland with his dad after his parents had divorced. He was the new kid at school, and even the boys that accepted him bullied him unmercifully.

So, he was really going through hell?

JEFF WILLIAMS: The new kid at this big school and being tormented by the older kids there.

MAN: We're getting buzzed off of it.

MILES O'BRIEN: Andy started drinking, smoking pot and taking prescription painkillers, and he had access to a gun. He had boasted to his friends that he was planning the rampage.

It is a volatile mix, but, sadly, a common one. So what separates a rampage killer from other struggling teens? Is it genetics or something in their environment?

Josh Buckholtz is a Harvard neuroscientist searching for the biological roots of violent behavior.

JOSH BUCKHOLTZ, Harvard University: One of the most infuriating things as a scientist and as a person is this attempt to try and find some diagnostic label, some neat diagnostic box to put this person into and -- and thus explain why they did this terrible, terrible thing.

MILES O'BRIEN: But as researchers peer into the brains of criminals using MRIs, they are finding some faulty wiring.

One of these circuits connects the prefrontal cortex, responsible for higher-level thinking, to the amygdala, an emotion center, which goes into overdrive whenever a threat is perceived. If the threat is not real, the prefrontal cortex will send a message to the amygdala to calm down. But if the wiring is faulty, that calming message may not get through.

JOSH BUCKHOLTZ: In those folks, it seems like this circuit is broken in such a way that they're more likely to respond with greater amygdala activity and greater emotional arousal when they think that they're being faced with some kind of threat.

MILES O'BRIEN: Even in perfectly healthy brains, the prefrontal cortex is not fully developed in the teenage years, but the amygdala is. This is one reason why teens tend to have bigger emotional swings. Now imagine a teen with the early stages of mental illness.

KATHERINE NEWMAN, Johns Hopkins University: They are people whose mental conditions often cause them to amplify to the sort of social slights that happen all the time in high school.

MILES O'BRIEN: Katherine Newman is a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University and author of "Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings."

KATHERINE NEWMAN: So, these are kids who are desperate to be accepted. They are not loners. They are people who are trying to join groups all of the time, but their experience every day is friction. It never works.

MILES O'BRIEN: Did you feel suicidal?

ANDY WILLIAMS: Absolutely. It was like an eight-month constant, like -- like I wonder if things would be better if, if I wasn't -- if I wasn't like in this city, in this state, like, or even on this Earth. So my grand scheme, like my grand plan was suicide by cop.

MILES O'BRIEN: Andy planned a so-called suicide by cop, expecting the authorities to gun him down, but he had a change of heart at the last minute, dropped the revolver and surrendered.

Researchers say 60 percent of rampage shooters are suicidal before the carnage. Psychologist John Keilp studies suicidal people, trying to find out how their brains differ from others.

 JOHN KEILP, Columbia University: We're looking at what's different about those people. And one of the things I think we feel confident about is that there is something different about those people, that it's not just a feature of depression.

Just take your three fingers, put it on the buttons, and one, two, and three stand for the response red, blue or green.

MILES O'BRIEN: Keilp believes one fundamental difference may show up in a deceptively simple test, which he let me try.

JOHN KEILP: Goes through the set as quickly as you can.

MILES O'BRIEN: It is called a Stroop test invented by psychologist John Ridley Stroop in the 1930s. It sounds simple-- all I had to do is identify the color I saw in the screen.

MILES O'BRIEN: Gosh, this is harder than you would think.

JOHN KEILP: They notice right away how you slow down.

MILES O'BRIEN: Yes. Oh, yes. I don't know why this is -- this shouldn't be that hard. Why is that?

JOHN KEILP: Well, that was Stroop's big discovery.

MILES O'BRIEN: Keilp had two groups of people complete Stroop tests while their brains were in an MRI.

JOHN KEILP: And it's just lie still and relax, OK?

MILES O'BRIEN: One group was depressed. Some had attempted suicide, and the other was healthy. He noticed a surprising difference in their brain scans. These are healthy brains doing a Stroop test when the color and the word don't match.

The red areas denote increased blood flow, and thus brain activity, in the frontal cortex region, the cingulate, which resolves conflicting perceptions, and the visual regions as well. Now look at the brains of depressed, suicidal people doing the same test.

That's very dramatic.

Keilp says their brains seem inclined to focus on one thing, in this case the word, not the color, and are less flexible. It may mean their brains are wired in a way that makes them fixate on suicidal thoughts. Research like this may take scientists closer to a means of screening for suicidal tendencies, especially in adolescents who would never admit to it, like Andy Williams.

But the question remains, why does someone who wants to end his own life decide to take so many others with him?

KATHERINE NEWMAN: You are looking for a way to change this terrible social reputation you have as a loser, and you land on the idea of shooting people after many other failed attempts to change your social reputation.

HEATH LEDGER, “The Dark Knight”: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

MILES O'BRIEN: Often, rampage shooters cast themselves as a Hollywood villain, the antihero. The shooter who opened fire in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo. was infatuated with the Joker in the Batman movies.

KATHERINE NEWMAN: The antihero is a respected character, respected through fear. And that feels a lot better to them than dismissed, belittled, insignificant.

MILES O'BRIEN: Better to be infamous than irrelevant?

KATHERINE NEWMAN: Better to be infamous than invisible.

MILES O'BRIEN: Jeff Williams says he had no idea a rampage killer was living under his roof.

So, why were you holding back from your father, though?

ANDY WILLIAMS: I don't know, man. I think I was like -- I was just ashamed to confront, like, my failure.

MILES O'BRIEN: Do you love your son?

JEFF WILLIAMS: Yes, I love my son very much. I do not condone what he did. I do not condone the way he went about trying to resolve his issues whatsoever. He made a very bad choice. I can't change that.

MILES O'BRIEN: Research may never give us an easy way to identify a future rampage killer, but it has proven the roots of a rampage run deep. And there are many ingredients in the mix long before the carnage. If only we were better at seeing the signs of trouble.

JUDY WOODRUFF: NOVA's "Mind of a Rampage Killer" premieres tonight at 9:00 p.m. Eastern time. Check your local PBS listing for details.

And, online, you can listen to Miles' full interview with Andy Williams, who explains what was going through his mind that fateful day when he carried out a mass shooting at his school. Miles also spoke with Liza Long, author of the viral blog post "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother," about Long's son's battle with mental illness and violent behavior. Watch that interview on our homepage.

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

GWEN IFILL: More now on brain science and medical research, as the National Institutes of Health move to break new ground.

Ray Suarez has that story.

RAY SUAREZ: During his State of the Union address, the president suggested for the first time that he will propose a decade-long effort to map the activity of the human brain. No dollar figures have been attached to the project, but scientists suggested it could result in hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually on new research, in much the way the Human Genome Project was funded in the '90s.

The president connected those two projects as well, making the case for it as economic investment.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Now, if we want to make the best products, we also have to invest in the best ideas. Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 dollars to our economy, every dollar.

Today, our scientists are mapping the human brain to unlock the answers to Alzheimer's. They're developing drugs to regenerate damaged organs, devising new materials to make batteries 10 times more powerful. Now is not the time to gut these job-creating investments in science and innovation.

RAY SUAREZ: Dr. Francis Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project back then. Today, he's the director of the National Institutes of Health, which would coordinate much of the brain project.

And he joins me now.

Good to have you back.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS, National Institutes of Health: Nice to be with you, Ray.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, there's research going on in universities around the country, institutions around the world into how the brain works. Why do we need government capital flowing into this area?

FRANCIS COLLINS: Because there's a new technology opportunity here that wasn't really present four or five years ago, and the opportunity now exists in the similar way to the Genome Project about 30 years ago to build an enterprise upon new technology involving nanotechnology, optogenetics, some things that are pretty recent, and to be able to understand the brain in the way that we really can't right now.

Right now, we can measure the activity of a single brain cell, a neuron, see when it fires, or we can look at the whole brain in pictures like you just saw in this segment, MRI scans, PET scans. But a big intermediate zone there where you want to understand entire circuits in the brain and how they function when the brain is actually doing something, that has been out of our reach.

We have not had the ability to do that kind of simultaneous recording of thousands of neurons to see what they're up to. That's what this brain activity map is all about.

RAY SUAREZ: It sounds like you're describing an "If we build it, they will come" sort of enterprise. Who would gather underneath that roof, what kind of professionals, what kind of institutions?

FRANCIS COLLINS: There's growing excitement about this, and not just from the NIH, although we're quite excited, also from foundations like the Allen Institute, the Kavli Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, also from industry because a lot of this would involve the development of technologies that would have many applications from patient groups, because the whole goal here is to look at the brain and try to understand how sometimes things don't work the way they're supposed to.

And the kinds of disciplines you would want involved, engineers, computational experts, because the amount of data will be enormous, biologists, physicians, people who understand nanotechnology and how to create the new kinds of tools we need, all of those working together in an interdisciplinary, focused project still very much in the outlined phase, not yet sort of connected to milestones and deliverables, but we believe the time has come to see what that could look like.

RAY SUAREZ: And how long are we talking about for the life cycle of something like this?

FRANCIS COLLINS: At the moment, I think, to be fair, if you really want to see this play out to the degree of understanding a circuit in the human brain, we're talking about many years, a decade, maybe 15 years people are talking about, but it will be incremental in terms of the advances.

I mean, let's be clear. The brain is the most complicated organ in the universe. We have learned a lot about other human organs. We know how the heart pumps and how the kidney does what it does. To a certain degree, we have read the letters of the human genome. But the brain has 100 billion neurons. Each one of those has about 10,000 connections.

So, that means there's something like 1,000 trillion connections inside your brain and mine right now. And understanding that and how it works when it works well, and what goes wrong in a disease like Alzheimer's or autism or epilepsy or depression or schizophrenia, those are critical things we need to understand. And it is not going to be an overnight experience to get there.

We have only glimmers of answers to that right now, but this could build a foundation for the future of our understanding of neuroscience that would be going forward for decades to come.

RAY SUAREZ: There may be only glimmers, but it sounds really expensive.

And, right now, we're in the midst of a battle royal about the spending present and the spending future of the United States government.

FRANCIS COLLINS: Well, this is my life. As the director of the National Institutes of Health, I have the opportunity to see this amazing array of scientific opportunities. We're here tonight talking about the brain. We could have a conversation about cancer, about Alzheimer's disease, about diabetes, about rare diseases, about a vaccine for HIV-AIDS.

All of those potential opportunities are in front of us. Yet, we are also at the time where the biomedical research enterprise supported by NIH has never been under greater stress. We have seen our purchasing power fall by 20 percent in the last 10 years, and now we are looking down the barrel of the sequester, which your program talked about earlier in this hour, which would, on Mar. 1^st, remove $1.6 billion dollars for the budget for biomedical research, slowing down many of the things that currently are most exciting.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, whether that happens or not, the sequester, does it usher in a new spirit? When you talk to members of Congress about your future appropriations, are you under more scrutiny, under more skeptical scrutiny, than you were before?

FRANCIS COLLINS: Well, it's a difficult time in our country. I get that. The fiscal situation is, clearly, very serious, and so it wouldn't be responsible of Congress to simply give dollars to anything without asking, are we getting something in return?

But the evidence for medical research is overwhelming, both in terms of advances in health, things like deaths from heart attack down by 60 percent, from stroke by 70 percent. Survival with HIV-AIDS is now almost the normal lifespan. All of those things come out of NIH research. But you can look now to see what's being supported by our rigorous peer-review process and see also that we're doing the best science in the world.

And you can also say, OK, is it helping the economy? Because we're worried about that. Answer, absolutely yes. You heard the president quote the statistic about the Genome Project, that every dollar returned $140 dollars in terms of economic growth in the first few years after the project was completed. That's a pretty darn good return on the government's investment.

And let's be clear. The kind of science we're talking about with this brain activity map, this wouldn't happen in the private sector alone. There's no direct product here that anybody would see as a reason to invest if you're a stockholder, but it will be something that industry will want to follow closely and build upon.

It's that wonderful partnership between public and private, emerging here in a new way, with a new horizon in front of it.

RAY SUAREZ: A partnership between public and private. Why shouldn't it be just private? If there's such a tremendous potential return, why isn't the private sector rushing to get ahead of you to do this kind of work?

FRANCIS COLLINS: Well, because, Ray, the turnaround, the time it takes for that return on investment is unpredictable, and it's probably not short.

And the private sector, understandably -- they have stockholders to answer to -- are not going to put hundreds of millions of dollars into something where the return is somewhat uncertain and may not happen for years to come. This is the natural place for the government to invest, just like the Genome Project, where all of that effort was basically funded by the taxpayer, but then resulted in this enormous proliferation of private sector activity that's transforming medicine.

That's why we have personalized medicine and many other things, because that partnership worked. It can work here, too.

RAY SUAREZ: Dr. Francis Collins of the NIH, thanks for joining us.

FRANCIS COLLINS: Great to be with you, Ray.

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

JUDY WOODRUFF:Finally tonight: the unfolding mystery of a huge and exciting new archaeological find. It's all happening on a group of islands off the northern tip of Scotland.

Jeffrey Brown reports.

JEFFREY BROWN: Drive across the windswept, almost treeless landscape of the Orkney Islands, and you will see sheep, cattle and farmland. But it won't be long before you come across an ancient standing stone, or two or three.

The islands are littered with a collection of world-famous archaeological sites. There's Skara Brae, a superbly preserved Neolithic hut settlement, Maeshowe, a chambered stone tomb, built so the midwinter sun shines along its low entrance hall, and the Standing Stones of Stenness.

But now, nearby, a site recently unearthed site to top them all, the Ness of Brodgar, a vast temple-like complex, one of the most important Neolithic discoveries in Europe that may provide new insight into Stone Age religious practice.

NICK CARD, Ness of Brodgar: The Ness of Brodgar is kind of an archaeologist's dream site. What we have is a complex of structures the like of which we have never really seen before in Atlantic Europe, buildings of scale and complexity and architecture completely enclosed within this massive walled enclosure. It's just spectacular.

JEFFREY BROWN: Nick Card heads up excavation at the site for the Orkney Research Center for Archaeology. He was in Washington recently to lecture on the work. We spoke in the Gallery of the Society of Woman Geographers surrounded by photos from the islands.

NICK CARD: It was the focus for activity of over 1,000 years. And I think through that thousand years, its purpose, its meaning, its function would have changed. But I think it did have a religious function, as you know, perhaps reaching out to the gods, to the deities that these people believed in.

JEFFREY BROWN: The site dates to around 3300 B.C., well before the construction of Stonehenge some 700 miles to the south.

It was the Neolithic or late Stone Age, a time of transition from hunting and gathering to farming and settled communities. In more modern times, as this painting from 1855 shows, the site was essentially hiding in plain sight, under a huge mound of earth.

NICK CARD: This mound, I live just up the road from it. I have driven past it hundreds of times. And, yes, you always thought, this has got to be natural. It's too big to be artificial.

JEFFREY BROWN: So you were driving past it all these times, all these years and you thought, maybe something is going on, but you had no idea?

NICK CARD: Exactly. And then just over 10 years ago, this has all changed.

And what has been revealed is this totally unique site.

JEFFREY BROWN: How did you feel the first time you realized that? Were you excited, or did you feel like a bit of an idiot for driving past it for many years? Excuse me.

NICK CARD: If I felt a bit of an idiot, I can assure you that all the other archaeologists in Britain probably felt the same, because it is one of those archaeological meccas that everybody comes to see at least once in a lifetime.

JEFFREY BROWN: In fact, the site was stumbled upon accidentally by a local couple who wanted to plant a garden. When they hit upon a notched stone slab, archaeologists were called in.

Since that first discovery in 2003, the dig has steadily expanded, revealing a walled complex of large ceremonial structures. More than 20 have been uncovered so far, and geophysical tests show they're only the tip of the iceberg.

NICK CARD: When you see photographs of our site, it looks huge.

JEFFREY BROWN: Yes.

NICK CARD: But that trench, our biggest trench only covers 10 percent of the site. The site itself covers the equivalent of five soccer pitches.

JEFFREY BROWN: The ness, which means headland or promontory, stretches along two bodies of water and is sandwiched between what's left of two ancient standing stone circles. Card says the location is no accident.

NICK CARD: I think that the whole landscape, when you stand in the middle of the ring at Brodgar, you get the sense of being in the middle of this huge natural amphitheater created by the hills all the way around and then the water on either side.

It's a unique landscape, a very special landscape, and no doubt had very special significance to our Neolithic ancestors.

JEFFREY BROWN: Card points to clues that this was a special ceremonial site: a beautifully polished stone axe, stone mace-heads carefully placed, grooved pottery and even painted walls.

NICK CARD: It wasn't kind of floor to ceiling, you know, magnolia. It was specific colors in specific places. And again we're finding this the first evidence in Britain for -- that some of the pottery was painted. So suddenly this monochrome world that so often the archaeological record presents to us has transformed into this kind of psychedelia.

JEFFREY BROWN: But mysteries abound as to the exact nature of the place, including why, after those thousand years of activity, it all came to an end. Archaeologists were stunned to find that the site had been filled in and that underneath lay the bones of hundreds of cattle, possibly the remains of a huge feast.

NICK CARD: Cattle, hundreds of them.

JEFFREY BROWN: Yes.

NICK CARD: It's one of the biggest barbecues in history.

JEFFREY BROWN: Why one last whatever you want to call it, barbecue, and then closing the place?

NICK CARD: Roughly, when this was happening, you get the introduction of the first metalwork, bronze. And with bronze, the introduction of bronze, you get changes in burial practice, changes in society. There seems to be much more emphasis on the individual, rather on the wider community.

The kind of social structures that made the ness possible and kept it there at the kind of pinnacle of Neolithic society was suddenly eclipsed.

JEFFREY BROWN: Card hopes to find more answers and more objects when the digging resumes this summer at the giant Ness of Brodgar complex.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor tells the story of her childhood growing up with a difficult mother, an alcoholic father and a deeply loving grandmother. Her new memoir, "My Beloved World," gives an exceptionally personal portrait of the justice from youth to judgeship.

But before she put her story to paper, she faced choices. How intimately should she describe her experiences? How much should she share?

In one situation, she asked her cousin and aunt if she could write about a cousin who died after struggling with AIDS and a drug addiction. For writing about her mother, the choice came more easily.

"We had come to that decision in our life together. We've done a lot of talking through the years, this book chronicles that. And we've come to peace with the things that I felt and experienced.... That's what the book describes, how we walked my life together," she said.

On Wednesday's NewsHour, Sotomayor talks more with Gwen Ifill about her past and her experience as a Supreme Court justice. You can watch a web-only excerpt here:

Photos courtesy Sonia Sotomayor's collection. This video was edited by Justin Scuiletti.

Support Your Local PBS Station

Two days before the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School Dec. 14, Liza Long's 13-year-old son "Michael" had a violent outburst that landed him in the hospital. 

Watch Video

 Liza Long is the author of the blog post "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother," which she wrote shortly after hearing of the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn. 

When Long heard about the shootings in Newtown, Conn., she put her head in her hands, cried and thought to herself, "What if I'm that mom someday?" And then she penned a blog post that would go viral and shine a harsh light on gaps in mental health care. The title: "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother."

In a gripping interview, Miles O'Brien talked at length with Long about raising her troubled son, managing his violent episodes, the stigma surrounding mental illness and her experience writing the blog. We posted a short excerpt of this discussion on Wednesday. Above is the extended version. 

Watch Video

Long's son "Michael" suffers from mental illness. Long wrote of her son's high IQ and also his terrifying violent outbursts. 

O'Brien also spoke with Long's son, "Michael," whose name has been changed due to the sensitivity of the topic. He describes what it's like to have a violent episode, or "rage." You can read the full transcript of that interview below. 

MILES O'BRIEN: Michael, first of all, well what do you want to say?  What’s on your mind?  What do you want people to hear?

MICHAEL: Well, I just want people to know that if there’s anyone out there that doesn’t think these mental disorders are a serious problem, well, I just want them to know that these problems and disorders can ruin a kid’s life and make them depressed.  Kids at school will pick on kids with these disorders. Basically, it will make them very upset. It will make these kids very upset and very hurt, so kids like me need help. That’s about it.

MILES: What about punishment?

MICHAEL: Punishment never really works. Kids like me need positive reinforcement.  You reward them for the behaviors that you'd like to see. You don’t put them down for things they do wrong. I mean sure, punishment can be OK, but don’t completely overdo it. You want to put more emphasis on positive reinforcement, and don’t spend so much time telling your kids, “Okay, you’re in trouble, you’re grounded. You did this and this wrong.” It makes kids like me very upset to hear that they’ve been doing stuff wrong, and we know that we’re doing stuff wrong, but hearing it makes us upset.

MILES: You just can’t stop it.

MICHAEL: Yeah.

MILES: A little root beer goes a long way, doesn’t it?

MICHAEL: Well, if you find things that the child likes, rewarding them with stuff like that works. So with me, yeah, it's a root beer.

MILES: Tell me what it’s like. I have really enjoyed your company. I mean that. I’m not just saying that. Because you’re fun, you’re quirky, you’re funny, and you’re interesting, and you’ve got a lot going on. What happens when you have a rage?

MICHAEL: Your mind goes blank. You think about nothing but getting revenge on the people that have hurt you. You lash out and do violent things. It’s very hurtful and afterwards you may be incredibly tired and basically depressed. You feel really bad about it, but you know that there’s not really anything you can do to them to make up to the people you hurt during those incidents. And you can’t control yourself when you’re like that, and no one else can. When you get like that, you just want to get the heck away from anyone in the area. It’s kind of like a werewolf.  When a werewolf turns into a werewolf, it doesn’t know who he is, it doesn’t know where he is, it just wants to hurt and fight people.

MILES: Wow, so you feel like there’s another person inside almost?

MICHAEL: Basically.

MILES: Scary.

MICHAEL: Yes.

MILES: Wow. There’s no easy fix, is there?

MICHAEL: Not really. Lots of hard work, lots of practice, good habits.  If you get into good habits like brushing your teeth everyday, you can slowly start to see improvement, but you’re never going to fully get better. You can get it to a point of almost perfection but --

MILES: Are you optimistic about your future? You think you’ll be able to get control of it?

MICHAEL: Oh yeah. I’d say yeah. I think I’m doing a pretty good job already.

MILES: Yeah, I think so. Wish you the best. Is that good? Anything else you want to say?

MICHAEL: Nope, I think that’s good.

MILES: You did well, you're very well spoken.

MICHAEL: Thanks.

MILES: You're a very articulate young man.

MICHAEL: Thank you.

MILES: You really are.  Anyway, thank you. 

Related:

What It's Like to be the Father of a Rampage Killer

School Shooter Andy Williams: 'My Grand Plan Was Suicide by Cop'

A new poll shows public support of President Obama's approach on several issues. Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

Two polls out Thursday show record support for President Obama over congressional Republicans on the sequester battle that is consuming political debate this week.

A Pew Research Center/USA Today poll released Thursday found Americans mostly in favor of Mr. Obama's approach to four issues: immigration, the federal budget deficit, guns and climate change. Pew found that budget issues and the sequester are most pressing for the public, with 70 percent of those polled wanting a resolution this year.

The $85 billion in spending cuts Congress hastily agreed to last year as part of a broader deal are scheduled to take effect one week from Friday. Nearly half of the poll's respondents (49 percent) would blame congressional Republicans, while 31 percent would blame Mr. Obama. That's one reason the GOP has dubbed it the "Obamaquester," and lawmakers are using the same talking points to remind Mr. Obama that he supported the compromise and signed it into law. (The president also predicted during his re-election campaign that the sequester "would not happen.")

A Bloomberg National poll released Wednesday found Mr. Obama holding momentum as well. He hit his highest approval rating in this poll since his first year in office, at 55 percent. The Republican Party is at its lowest point since late 2009, with 35 percent approval.

But national public opinion results may have little sway over budget and spending policy made by lawmakers with only their districts in mind.

Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times reported Wednesday that House Republicans' refusal to allow tax increases to slice the pending sequester cuts is "all but ensuring the cuts will go into force March 1 and probably remain in place for months, if not longer."

He wrote:

House Republicans say they are feeling invulnerable in the current clash. Not only can they point to last year's bills to replace the cuts, but redistricting has made most of them immune to political threats and entreaties. For many representing conservative districts where the president holds little sway, an attack by Mr. Obama is a badge of honor, senior Republican House aides say.

It's a phenomenon we could dub the "gerrymander gap." Republicans are sticking more firmly against tax hikes now in part because they fractured over ending the George W. Bush-era tax breaks to avoid going over the fiscal cliff.

That showdown over the New Year holiday pitted House Speaker John Boehner against some conservative congressional Republicans who nearly killed a compromise despite public pressure and an agreement with Democrats.

It's not that Republicans agree with the cuts scheduled for March 1 -- even Boehner called them "ugly and dangerous" in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece Wednesday. They'd just prefer a different -- or even more extensive -- set of spending cuts to Mr. Obama's proposal to raise taxes on millionaires, end oil and agriculture subsidies, eliminate some tax loopholes and stop tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.

The NewsHour examined the sequestration issue Wednesday night with a report and Judy Woodruff's interview with Pentagon official Ashton Carter. Watch that here or below.

SOTOMAYOR SPEAKS

Gwen Ifill sat down with Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday to discuss her new book "My Beloved World" and how she is "growing into" life as a justice. Sotomayor was candid about her own anxiety, advice she got from Justice John Paul Stevens and her evolution on cameras in the courtroom.

Watch here or below:

We also posted extended excerpts of their discussion, along with Sotomayor's childhood photos. She opened up about her family and feelings. Watch that here or below:

AFTER NEWTOWN

PBS on Monday began a weeklong series exploring every facet of the societal debate over guns in the wake of the tragic shooting massacre in Newtown, Conn. The package features broadcast pieces on signature programs. On Wednesday's NewsHour and for NOVA, Miles O'Brien explored the brains of killers.

Watch Miles' report here or below:

PBS' FRONTLINE hosted a live chat with the producer of its most recent documentary "Raising Adam Lanza."

We also posted extended interviews with parents speaking from the heart about their troubled children. They aren't easy to watch.

Watch here or below.

Politics desk assistant Simone Pathe examined the rhetoric used in the heated debate overs guns, talking with professors, political hands and experts about why some words, like "gun safety," are taking on new heft.

Tom LeGro collected images of guns in art.

"After Newton" includes robust online offerings you can check out here, and find all the details about which pieces are airing and when here.

MESSINA TALKS TO STUDENTS

Jim Messina, who served as Mr. Obama's 2012 campaign manager, shared his overarching philosophy in Washington on Wednesday night. NewsHour online politics production assistant Meena Ganesan was there.

When Mr. Obama asked Messina to run his re-election effort, the longtime political operative asked the president to make one promise to him: "We can't run the same campaign we ran in 2008."

In a candid conversation at George Washington University, Messina told a group of college students how he felt it was imperative that the campaign change its game on technology to again win the voting bloc sitting in front of him: young people.

In 2008, the iPhone had just been released and Facebook had barely 100 million users compared to the 1 billion it has today. "In '08, we had sent 1 tweet on Election Day because we thought it was stupid technology that would never go anywhere," Messina said.

To say the least, it was a different world. They needed to win on the small things, like Facebook's targeted sharing technology in which supporters suggest to their "friends" online that they get out the vote. "The single most influential person in this country isn't a politician," Messina said, "It's your friends and your family."

LINE ITEMS

Julie Pace of the Associated Press reports that the Obama administration "is considering urging the Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on gay marriage -- a move that could have a far-reaching impact on same-sex couples across the country." She writes that the administration has one week left to file a friend-of-the-court brief before justices consider the matter next month.

New York Daily News' Dan Friedman explains how he inadvertently created "Friends of Hamas" when questioning a Republican aide about conservative opposition to secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel and how conservative bloggers took the myth too far. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said at an event in New York that Hagel "almost had tears" when talking about the whole confirmation process.

Prosecutors have recommended a sentence of 46 to 57 months in prison after former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., pleaded guilty Wednesday to one count of conspiracy to commit false statements, wire and mail fraud in connection with using $750,000 in campaign funds for personal use and filing fraudulent campaign and tax reports. His wife, former Chicago alderman Sandi Jackson pleaded guilty to one charge of tax fraud related to the same misuse of funds. Sentencing for Jackson Jr. is set for June 28.

Mitt Romney will speak at CPAC next month, his first public appearance since losing the election.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $4.2 million in January.

The Republican National Committee says it has more available spending money than the debt-addled Democratic National Committee. Politico reports the RNC sits with $7.1 million cash on hand, while the DNC has $4.6 million cash on hand. "Our donor base is now larger this year than it was in 2011," said RNC chairman Reince Priebus in a statement Wednesday.

Politico reports that actress Ashley Judd met privately with the DSCC earlier this week, underscoring suspicions she's mounting a challenge to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

The Washington Post's Jason Horowitz profiles the latest version of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

In a fundraising email for Planned Parenthood, Sandra Fluke marks one year since she wasn't allowed to testify on Capitol Hill.

First lady Michelle Obama and late night show host Jimmy Fallon will have a fitness rematch Friday as she does a tour to celebrate the third anniversary of "Let's Move!" (See last year's video here.)

Florida GOP Gov. Rick Scott changed his mind and will accept the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act after all.

Former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., admits he had a son out of wedlock three decades ago. Roll Call's Warren Rojas has the best headline: "Eight Wasn't Enough ..."

Roll Call's Joshua Miller asks if a Republican primary in Louisiana could spoil the party's chances at ousting Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Hillary Clinton's lecture fee will be $200,000 per speech.

Behold, the new official portraits of the president and first lady.

Yeah, we guess we have to link to this.

A fascinating look inside Kurt Cobain's journals.

Today's tidbit from NewsHour partner Face the Facts USA is sobering: The number of children living in poverty is on the rise.

NEWSHOUR ROUNDUP

Secretary of State John Kerry gave his first major address Wednesday.

We talked with NIH's Francis Collins about the Obama administration's efforts to map the brain.

Jeff Brown continues our look at Oscar-nominated documentaries with "The Gatekeepers."

Next week, the Supreme Court will examine a constitutional challenge to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The landmark case asks whether the act is still necessary and whether voters still risk disenfranchisement in certain parts of the country. The NewsHour will examine in depth the questions this case raises, and we'd like your help as we go even deeper. Get details about our Oral History project here. You can record your memory now using the button below, or call (703) 594-6PBS to share your story.

TOP TWEETS

Steve Brill's Time cover story runs 36 pages, longest published by single writer in mag's history: ti.me/15wrtfm

— Michael Calderone (@mlcalderone) February 21, 2013

No. Working on Newark's budget. I have a metaphorical Wrestlemania already RT @moose_bigelow: Are u going to Wrestlemania at Giants Stadium?

— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) February 21, 2013

Ten years ago today: "I'm Howard Dean and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." bit.ly/YoBlAw

— Garrett Graff (@vermontgmg) February 21, 2013

My girl @leighstream has 987 followers, people! You know what to do... especially if you like smart, brave female journos #ff

— Christina Bellantoni (@cbellantoni) February 21, 2013

Had this cover on my wall most of my teenage life. RT @huffpoststyle Today, Kurt Cobain would have been 46 twitpic.com/c5e45z

— Christina Bellantoni (@cbellantoni) February 20, 2013

Cassie M. Chew and politics desk assistant Simone Pathe contributed to this report.

For more political coverage, visit our politics page.

Sign up here to receive the Morning Line in your inbox every morning.

Questions or comments? Email Christina Bellantoni at cbellantoni-at-newshour-dot-org.

Follow the politics team on Twitter: @cbellantoni, @burlij, @elizsummers, @kpolantz, @indiefilmfan, @tiffanymullon, @dePeystah and @meenaganesan.

Support Your Local PBS Station

Click to enlarge.

Three boys wait to take part in the carnival at the IX Poetry Festival in Granada, Nicaragua, on Wednesday. This year's festival is held in honor of poet Ernesto Cardenal. Photo by Hector Retamal/AFP/Getty Images.

If you spend enough time in or around Washington, you'll meet amazing people who work for the government. A cancer researcher at the National Institutes of Health, an investigator with the FBI, a long-time receptionist at Treasury, an engineer who works at the Department of Energy -- the great majority of them get little or no public notice. Occasionally, a few are recognized through programs like the "Sammy Awards," presented by the Partnership for Public Service, a non-profit dedicated to "revitalizing" public service "by inspiring a new generation to serve and by transforming the way government works."

I've written about the Partnership before, because every year they single out a handful of extraordinary federal employees. In 2012, for example, two of the people they honored were Customs & Border Protection agency managers Nael Samha and Thomas Roland, for a smartphone application they created that allows agents in the field to access law enforcement databases in real time, which "led to enforcement actions against more than 450 drug traffickers, weapons smugglers, illegal immigrants and potential terror suspects."

I'm thinking about Samha and Roland this week, because as Congress and the White House remain far apart on how to avoid $85 billion dollars in across-the-board federal spending cuts, government workers face uncertainty. The FBI told reporters Wednesday the cuts would require all its employees, including special agents, to be furloughed for up to 14 days. The Defense Department would be asked to cut $46 billion dollars, affecting training, future weapons acquisition and furloughs for civilians on its payroll.

It's true that most of the cuts would be phased in, and if the two sides come to agreement they can avoid them altogether. But if they do kick in, the effects will be felt by ordinary Americans who benefit from the work of federal employees. Wait times at the nation's busiest airports could increase as security screeners face furloughs. The Food and Drug Administration would be forced to cut back on food inspections. This, on top of benefit cuts for the 4.7 million long-term unemployed and potential cuts to Head Start and nutrition programs for low-income women and their children.

GOP skeptics say the projections are exaggerated, that the Obama administration is hyping the consequences of the so-called sequester to put pressure on congressional Republicans to go along with tax loophole - closings and other revenue raisers. It won't be long before we'll find out if that's right, because the deadline for agreement is March 1, and there are just a few business days between now and then. Whichever side you favor, the American public appears to be weary at best -- and disgusted at worst -- by yet one more example of Washington brinksmanship.

So it was a happy surprise that I came across an event last weekend that drew folks who were glad to be in Washington. It was the Seventh Annual Capitol Hill Classic, a competitive East Coast girls' volleyball tournament drawing young women between 12 and 18 years of age from the Carolinas to New England. Over 1,400 talented athletes, plus coaches and family members, converged on the Washington Convention Center, divided across 100 volleyball courts. Watching the daughter of a friend play on Sunday morning, I couldn't find a cynical face in the crowd of cheering, excited players and families. And no one was talking about the sequester.

Capitol Hill Classic

Support Your Local PBS Station

Paul Solman answers a Next Avenue reader's question about how to choose an advisor who puts your financial interests first.

This little financial advisor would put anyone's books in the black. Find a better one using advice from pension expert Zvi Bodie. Photo by Andrew Rich/Getty Images.

Paul Solman frequently answers questions from the NewsHour audience on business and economic news on his Making Sen$e page. Friday's comes from a reader at Next Avenue. The NewsHour has partnered with Next Avenue, a new PBS website that offers articles, blogs and other critical information for adults over 50.

Janice Wagner -- Bay City, Mich.: I am currently managed by an investment company. I would like to know who in my area is "an independent financial advisor." I have been unable to find this type of advisor. Do you have any lists for different areas?

Paul Solman: I assume you mean your money is managed by an investment company, even if it sometimes feels as if you yourself are.

Do I have a little list of financial advisors? No, I don't.

I referred your email to my own main financial advisor, friend and Boston University pension expert Zvi Bodie, also known as "Bodie-Sattva," on the Making Sense page. Zvi suggested contacting the NAPFA, the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors, for someone in your area. He also recommended his own online library of resources for getting started with a financial advisor.

Here is a follow-up from Bodie, based on his book with Rachelle Taqqu, "Risk Less and Prosper."

Zvi Bodie: You're looking for an enduring relationship based on mutual respect and trust, so plan on investing at least as much effort as you'd put into choosing an automobile, especially a used one. You should make sure you choose an advisor who puts your interests first, and avoid advisors whose services are free." Free advice is usually worth less than you pay for it.

Advice offered "for free" often comes from brokers and salespeople whose products have commissions embedded in them. Many brokers and insurance agents call themselves financial advisors, so names don't necessarily tell you all you need to know. It's in the broker's interest to make the sale, whether the product is best for you or not. Even upright, highly ethical brokers are subject to this conflict, which can operate at a subconscious level.

Nor is "independence" a sign of objectivity. Just because advisors are independent does not mean that they don't receive commissions (or referral fees) from third parties. You have to ask.

Your interests are best served by an advisor who is a fiduciary. A fiduciary must disclose how the advisor is compensated along with any related conflicts of interest. A good place to begin is with the website of NAPFA, the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors, whose members are all committed to upholding a fiduciary standard.

Non-fiduciary broker-dealers and their registered representatives are held to the lower standard of suitability, which allows them to offer only "suitable" advice, even if they are aware that it isn't the best advice for their client. Under the suitability standard, an advisor could, for example, recommend a mutual fund that returned a fee to the advisor, even if the advisor knew that a comparable, less expensive fund was available.

Treat all referrals from friends and family as a prelude to more questions. Some of the worst horror stories of fraud and scams came about because the victims took recommendations from a friend's suggestion on pure faith. The recent Madoff fraud is just one recent reminder.

Fee-Only vs. Fee-Based Compensation

A fee-only compensation arrangement minimizes conflicts of interest. But be sure you ask for, and get, a compensation structure that is fee-only, and not simply fee-based. Fee-based advisors can switch back and forth between planning fees and commissions when they are dual- registered advisors, so beware.

Fee-only advisors can structure their fees on a retainer basis, or as a fee for service-- for example, a flat fee for a financial check- up-- or as a percentage of assets under management (which is most common). Some advisors and planners also have hourly rates, although this option has become less usual.

Although these formulas are all acceptable, the assets-under-management model can sometimes contain hidden pitfalls that a flat fee or hourly rate don't share. It creates an incentive for the advisor to grow your assets to mutual advantage, but it sometimes leads advisors to steer you toward extra risk, or toward oversaving. (Yes, there is such a thing!)

For example, the advisor may talk you out of buying insurance products that would lower your risk but reduce the amount of your investments under management. These are matters you can clarify in your interview.

Interviewing Candidates

Plan to interview at least three candidates. Find out an advisor's qualifications, experience, credentials, and licenses. Look for an advisor who sees managing your investments as an integral part of helping you to achieve overall financial well-being. If the advisor does not offer comprehensive services, including career counseling, insurance, estate and tax planning, find out how they expect to get a whole picture of you.

And ask how they coordinate their advice with other professionals who advise you because you're hoping to simplify your life, not make it more complex. Finally, be sure that they will provide you with a personal investment policy statement and a plan that incorporates it.

It's the rare advisor who doesn't offer at least lip service to the centrality of your goals and personal circumstances. Ask how the advisor will integrate your goals with your investments.

Do they use safe investments, such as I Bonds and TIPS, to help make sure that you reach your goals? Be sure their answers are clear. Require that the advisor provide you with two plans: a minimum risk plan and an average risk plan.

One common mantra to watch out for is that you have to take on more risk or else you can't reach your goals. That's a misstatement that can cost you heavily. Or you may encounter a related reaction, outright hostility to safer investments, including a blanket repudiation of TIPS and I Bonds as a "way to make you poorer."

Once you've qualified your candidates, your personal comfort level is extremely important. Part of the equation includes an advisor's explanatory skills, which are distinct from powers of persuasion.

It's important that you understand the advice you are receiving very clearly. The best advisor will understand your situation and can fit your investment plan to you, while explaining things clearly. Look for someone who is a professional counselor first and foremost, and not just a businessman and/or investor.

See the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, "Questions to Ask When Choosing a Planner."

Paul Solman: I would only add that if I were interviewing a prospective financial advisor, having spent the past 37 years learning about economics and finance myself, the first thing I would do is follow Zvi's advice and contact the NAPFA. Then I'd contact a financial planner from their list. Then I'd check her or his references.

And then, If he or she checks out, I would ask a few critical questions as a test. Here are those questions and what would have to be included in the answers for me to hire the advisor:

1. What's the very safest possible investment? Some mention of I-bonds.

2. Do you invest in individual securities or mutual funds? Why? A discussion of mutual funds, and how they diversify risk.

3. If funds, what are their management fees? An explanation or admission that, as with the annual fees of planners to manage your money, mutual funds charge too as a percentage of assets being managed. The advisor should emphasize the importance of fees: the lower, the better.

4. Do you invest in index funds? If not, why not? Index funds had better be the starting place in this answer. The would-be advisor should point out that they're cheaper than non-index funds. Because a fund's management fee is probably the most important variable in choosing one over another, the advisor had better provide a compelling reason not to index. (Check with me if you get a non-indexing answer you find plausible and I'll see if I think it holds up.)

5. What asset allocation would you suggest and why? Asset allocation is the mix of your investments by type: stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. It is generally a more important decision than which fund to pick. I have heard two credible allocation heuristics over the years.

First: as between stocks and bonds, the percentage in bonds should equal your age. (Until you reach age 100, I guess.)

Second, as shared 30 years ago by America's first Nobel laureate in economics, Paul Samuelson: put 25 percent of your assets in short-term bonds, 25 percent in long-term bonds, and the remaining 50 percent in stocks.

My own asset allocation is, roughly speaking, some combination of the two, if tilted to the conservative. For years, my wife and I have been primarily invested in TIPS - Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities -- as a way to preserve capital for our old age. Our chief concern: that we do not outlive our savings.

But as I explained recently, I've gotten cold feet about TIPS, which are now priced at dizzying highs by historical standards. As a result, we are moving half our liquid assets into a restricted retirement fund with a 3 percent guaranteed return that I lucked into years ago. It is unfortunately closed to further investors but I have been appropriately grandfathered in.

Our asset allocation today? Here's a pie chart depicting it as of February 2013:

Paul's breakdown is for information and disclosure purposes only, and not meant to be financial advice.

I figure that's the most honest answer I can offer to readers: putting my mouth where my money is. But it is surely not an advertisement for my investing approach, especially as my "restricted" bond fund isn't available to the "non-grandfathered."

This entry is cross-posted on the Rundown -- NewsHour's blog of news and insight. Follow @PaulSolman

"As in the ruins of Beirut, Sarajevo or Stalingrad, it is a sniper's war; men stalk their fellow man down telescopic sights, hunting a glimpse of flesh, an eyeball peering from a crack," writes Reuters photographer Goran Tomasevic about Syria. Warning: Some images are graphic.

Smoking Buildings

A man walks in front of a burning building after a Syrian Air Force strike in Ain Tarma neighborhood of Damascus on Jan. 27. In a month on the frontlines of Syria's war, Reuters photographer Goran Tomasevic documented rebel fighters as they defended a swath of suburbs, mounted complex mass attacks, managed logistics, treated their wounded - and died. But as constant mortar, tank and sniper fire attested, President Bashar al-Assad's soldiers, often just a room or a grenade toss away, were equally well drilled - and much better armed. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Air Force Jet

A Syrian Air Force jet fires a flare in the Mleha suburb of Damascus in this Jan. 17 file photo. MiG warplanes roar overhead to strike rebels fighting to oust President Bashar al-Assad on the fringes of Damascus, while artillery batteries pound the insurgents from hills overlooking a city divided between all-out war and a deceptive calm. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Rebel Tank

Free Syrian Army fighters ride a tank outside a Syrian Army base during fighting in the Arabeen neighborhood of Damascus on Feb. 3. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

On the Move

Free Syrian Army fighters ride through the Haresta neighborhood of Damascus on Jan. 31. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Colored Bandanas

Free Syrian Army fighters take instructions from their commander before they stage an attack on a Syrian Army base in the Arabeen neighborhood of Damascus on Feb. 3. The assault by what appeared to be several hundred fighters involved numerous units which, lacking uniforms, donned bandanas in bright pinks, reds and oranges to identify their loyalties and reduce the risk of "friendly fire". Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Seeking Cover

A Free Syrian Army fighter runs for cover as he enters a Syrian Army base in Damascus. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Damascus Rubble

A Free Syrian Army fighter walks in a building destroyed during clashes in the Haresta neighborhood of Damascus. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Army Base Attack

A Free Syrian Army fighter fires a rifle during an attack on a Syrian Army base in Damascus on Feb. 3. The infantry skirmish for control of the barracks involved teams of fighters, who poured sustained rifle fire through gaps in the wall, tossed grenades over and did what they could to avoid incoming rounds. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Heavy Fire

Fighters from the Free Syrian Army's Tahrir al Sham brigade fire at Syrian army positions during heavy fighting in Mleha suburb of Damascus on Jan. 26. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Grenade Toss

A Free Syrian Army throws a grenade during an attack on a Syrian Army base in the Arabeen neighborhood of Damascus on Feb. 3. They tried to maintain surprise, but once the shooting began there was no turning back, no sign these men might recently have been fearful civilians. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Fuse Lighting

Fighters from the Free Syrian Army's Tahrir al Sham brigade use a shotgun to fire a fuse-lit stick of dynamite at Syrian Army soldiers in the Arabeen neigborhood of Damascus on Feb. 9. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Masked Fighter

A masked Free Syrian Army fighter stands in front of a burning barricade in Damascus. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Decoy

A Free Syrian Army fighter holds the head of a mannequin up to a hole in a wall to attract and locate a sniper during an attack on a Syrian Army base. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Rigged Shotgun

A fighter from the Free Syrian Army's Tahrir al Sham brigade uses a shotgun to fire an improvised grenade at Syrian Army soldiers in the Arabeen neigborhood of Damascus on Feb. 9. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Concrete Rain

Free Syrian Army fighters run for cover as a tank shell explodes on a wall in the Ain Tarma neighborhood of Damascus. The Jan. 30 attack happened as the rebels regrouped after the sniper attack, the shell struck the deserted building where they were sheltering, sending shattered concrete and dust raining down on them. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Flying Shrapnel

A fighter from the Free Syrian Army's Tahrir al Sham brigade screams in pain as he is hit by shrapnel from a hand grenade during heavy fighting in Mleha suburb of Damascus. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Wounded Fighter

A rebel fighter, who was wounded by a sniper, is carried by other fighters outside a Syrian Army base. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Taking a Break

A rebel fighter takes a break from fighting after getting hurt by a hand grenade thrown by Syrian soldiers. The grenade wounded four Free Syrian Army fighters. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Treating a Patient

A doctor treats an internally displaced child in a school at a village outside Damascus on Jan. 28. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Keeping Warm

Boys warm up outside a building in the Ain Tarma neighborhood of Damascus. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Dusty Stairwell

A Free Syrian Army fighter walks through a dust-filled stairwell after a comrade fired a B-10 recoilless gun at Syrian Army soldiers in the Haresta neighborhood of Damascus on Feb. 7. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Praying

Fighters from the Free Syrian Army's Tahrir al Sham brigade pray on a street in the Mleha suburb of Damascus. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Through the Hole

A fighter from the Free Syrian Army's Tahrir al Sham brigade walks through a hole in a building to reach his fighting position in Mleha suburb of Damascus on Jan. 25. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Scoping the Enemy

Fighters from the Free Syrian Army's Tahrir al Sham brigade look out of a window before they fire at Syrian Army in Damascus. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Sniper Fire

A Free Syrian Army fighter, who was shot by a sniper during fighting in the Ain Tarma neighborhood of Damascus on Jan. 30, is pulled away from the heat of the battle but later died. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Unexploded Mortar

An unexploded mortar shell fired by Syrian Army lies in the streets of Damascus. Photo: Goran Tomasevic/Reuters

Join correspondent Gwen Ifill for a live chat, hosted by PBS' Washington Week 12 p.m. ET today.

On the table: all things politics.

Support Your Local PBS Station

Warning: Some images in the slideshow are graphic.

Reuters photographer Goran Tomasevic recently spent a month on the frontlines of the war in Syria. Below is his account of what he saw.

By Goran Tomasevic of Reuters

DAMASCUS, Syria | Rebel fighters in Damascus are disciplined, skilled and brave.

In a month on the frontline, I saw them defend a swath of suburbs in the Syrian capital, mount complex mass attacks, manage logistics, treat their wounded -- and die before my eyes.

But as constant, punishingly accurate, mortar, tank and sniper fire attested, President Bashar al-Assad's soldiers on the other side, often just a room or a grenade toss away, are also well drilled, courageous -- and much better armed.

So while the troops were unable to dislodge brigades of the Free Syrian Army from devastated and depopulated neighborhoods just east of the city center -- and indeed made little effort to do so -- there seems little immediate prospect of the rebels overrunning Assad's stronghold. The result is bloody stalemate.

I watched both sides mount assaults, some trying to gain just a house or two, others for bigger prizes, only to be forced back by sharpshooters, mortars or sprays of machine gun fire.

All photos by Goran Tomasevic/Reuters.

As in the ruins of Beirut, Sarajevo or Stalingrad, it is a sniper's war; men stalk their fellow man down telescopic sights, hunting a glimpse of flesh, an eyeball peering from a crack, use lures and decoys to draw their prey into giving themselves away.

Fighting is at such close quarters that on one occasion a rebel patrol stumbled into an army unit inside a building; hand grenades deafened us and shrapnel shredded plaster, a sudden clatter of Kalashnikov cartridges and bullets coming across the cramped space gave way in seconds to the groans of the wounded.

From Jan. 14, having reached Damascus from Lebanon by way of undercover opposition networks, I spent four weeks in Ain Tarma, Mleha, Zamalka, Irbin and Harasta -- rebel-held areas forming a wedge whose apex lies less than a mile to the east of the walled Old City, with its ancient mosques, churches and bazaars.

Once bustling suburbs are all but empty of life, bar the fighters; six months of combat, of shelling and occasional air strikes have broken open apartment blocks to the winter winds of the high Syrian plateau and choked the streets with rubble.

Barricades

Battling the cold in woolen ski-hats or checkered keffiyeh scarves, swathed in layers of cotton and leather jackets, a few thousand unshaven men, many from nearby peasant villages, some who deserted Assad's army, defend a patchwork of barricades and strongpoints, served by cars ferrying ammunition and rations and led by commanders using handheld radios and messenger runners.

Days are punctuated by regular halts for prayer in a conflict, now 23 months old, that has become increasingly one pitting Syria's Sunni Muslim majority, stiffened by Islamist radicals, against Alawites led by Assad; they have support from Iran, from whose Shiite Islam their faith is derived.

Typical of the frontline routine was an attack that a couple of dozen men of the brigade Tahrir al-Sham -- roughly "Syrian Freedom" -- mounted in Ain Tarma on Jan. 30, aiming to take over or at least damage an army checkpoint further up the lane.

I photographed one two-man fire team crouch against a breeze-block garden wall, about 50 meters from their target.

In blue jeans, sneakers and muffled against a morning chill, their role was to wait for comrades to hit the army position with rocket-propelled grenades then rake the soldiers with their AK-47 automatic rifles as they were flushed out into the open.

There was little to make a sound in the abandoned streets. The attackers whispered to each other under their breath.

Then two shots rang out. One of the two riflemen, heavy set and balding, screamed in pain and collapsed back on the tarmac.

The day's assault was going wrong before it even started.

Another fighter crept over to help. Realizing the casualty was gravely hurt, two more came up and they dragged the man's inert bulk back across the street, through a narrow gap to relative safety.

Battlefield first-aid is helpless in the face of single shot to the belly. The man died in minutes, his gut ripped through and his blood warming the bare concrete floor. But there was no time to mourn -- the army was alerted to the squad's presence.

As the rebels regrouped, a tank shell struck the deserted building, sending shattered concrete and dust raining down on us and the survivors ran for cover, ready to fight another day.

Mass Attack

Having captured large areas last July before the front lines again congealed in the capital, the rebels stepped up attacks last month, trying to weaken Assad's grip on the outlying neighborhoods surrounding the fortified centre of Damascus and pushing across the main ring road in the neighborhood of Jobar.

Among the boldest offensive moves I saw was an assault by what appeared to be several hundred fighters on a sprawling army barracks in the Irbin district. It was striking for the level of coordination it displayed among numerous units which, lacking uniforms, donned bandannas in bright pinks, reds and oranges to identify their loyalties and reduce the risk of "friendly fire".

One group also brought up a Soviet-built T-72 tank to take part in the Feb. 3 attack. Crewed by men who evidently had been trained in the army, it may have had little ammunition, however.

The infantry skirmish for control of the barracks involved teams of fighters, their colorful headscarves at odds with grim faces and attempts at camouflage, stealing up to a two-meter perimeter wall that stretched for hundreds of meters around.

On a misty morning, they tried to maintain surprise, but once the shooting began there was no turning back, no sign these men might recently have been fearful civilians. They poured sustained rifle fire through gaps in the wall, tossed grenades over it and did what they could to avoid incoming rounds.

One man poked the head of a store-window mannequin, fixed on a pole, into a hole in the perimeter, hoping a sniper could be tempted to betray his position. It was a wise precaution. I saw another man picked off later as he aimed through a similar gap.

By afternoon, helped by their tank, they had breached the defenses and were inside the compound, looking for enemies, intelligence and, especially, more weapons to carry off. They knew the position itself would be hard to hold -- too big and open and vulnerable to familiar retaliatory air strikes.

In the end, at dusk, they pulled back. One commander said 150 of the attackers had been wounded and 20 were killed, a toll to add to the 70,000 the U.N. estimates have died in this war.

Rebel Weaponry

The bulk of the rebel armory is made up of Soviet- and Chinese-made AK-47s, similar to those among Assad's troops. Most rebels have one, though not always many magazines of bullets. I also saw U.S.-made M4 carbines and Austrian Steyr assault rifles not commonly supplied to the Syrian government. Western-allied Sunni Arab leaders in the Gulf have been arming the fighters.

Snipers use Russian Dragunovs and I also saw an American Barrett, a heavy-caliber rifle capable of puncturing metal.

The rebels also have rocket-propelled grenades and some heavier anti-tank weapons -- at least enough to discourage their opponents from trying to roll their armor through their lines.

One day, I watched a man fire an antiquated, probably 1960s vintage, Soviet B-10 recoilless rifle, a heavy, bazooka-style cannon normally mounted on a little trolley and weighing about 70 kg (150 pounds); the rebel fighter simply hefted it onto his shoulder and blasted a heavy round somewhere down the road.

Capable of improvising, I also saw men use a shotgun to blast a fuse-lit, home-made grenade at their enemy.

Further from the fighting lines, some vestiges of ordinary life go on for those civilians who have not joined the army of refugees. Often without electricity or running water, residents try to survive; a few shops sell vegetables, or meat kebabs. Moving around, glimpses of normality can be startling, as I found, turning a corner to find children playing in the street.

Other surprises were less pleasant. One Saturday, Jan. 26, I was following a rebel patrol in Mleha, crawling from house to house through holes smashed in walls to evade the snipers.

Just ahead, those in front emerged to find themselves face to face with some equally astonished soldiers. Gunfire, grenades and screams followed. I threw myself to the ground. Both sides quickly pulled back, the wounded gasping and dragged to safety.

The battle for Damascus grinds on.

Writing by Dominic Evans and Alastair Macdonald, editing by Peter Millership and Giles Elgood. You can view the original story on Reuters' website. See all of the NewsHour's World coverage and follow us:

Follow @NewsHourWorld

Support Your Local PBS Station

On Thursday's NewsHour:

Fast food dips to 11 percent of the American diet

Another Republican governor signs on to Medicaid expansion

A bombing, the deadliest in nine months, hits the heart of Damascus

And "After Newtown," the gun debate in Florida, and among students

While the above promo is written for the radio in the morning, it is a tentative snapshot of what we're covering on the show. With the ebb and flow of news headlines, chances are segments will be added, scrapped or moved to another night.

Tune in to the broadcast at 6 p.m. ET, online and on-air.

Follow @NewsHour

Support Your Local PBS Station

Photo by Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images.

"Once Upon a Time in Anatolia,""Ruby Sparks,""Tabu" and "West of Memphis."

Have you seen any of these films? They rank among the best films produced this year, according to David Sterritt, chairman of the National Society of Film Critics. And none are on the Academy of Motion Pictures of Arts and Sciences' nomination list for this year's Academy Awards.

The first is a Turkish art film, the second an American independent romantic comedy, the third a black-and-white Portuguese film with a limited U.S. release, and the last one an American documentary that brought in $82,100.

Every year, a number of critics will come out against certain picks and winners. Some will criticize the Academy Awards for misrepresenting of the world of cinema by leaving out worthy independent films, art house films and foreign films.

Some of the most iconic films -- "Dirty Harry,""King Kong" and "Bringing Up Baby" -- were never nominated for an Academy Award.

Sterritt's list of the best films includes some crossovers with the Academy's, like Michael Haneke's "Amour" and Joe Wright's "Anna Karenina." But the majority of Sterritt's top films were produced with small budgets and seen by a small audience.

"Any responsible critic wouldn't dismiss the Oscars," said film historian Wheeler Winston Dixon. "It's an important part of American history, but in the public's mind it is emblematic of all American film history -- and that's not the case. The Academy is a closed set, a deceptively small selection of films."

With the world's massive output of films each year, the Oscars primarily recognize a select few Hollywood films.

"The Oscars presents itself as the be-all end-all of cinema. It perpetuates the notion that Hollywood is American Cinema, and American cinema is cinema," said Max Dawson, assistant professor of radio, film and television at Northwestern University

The Academy of Motion Pictures of Arts and Sciences is made up of 6,000 professionals in the film industry. The members are divided into subsets of editors, cinematographers, actors, directors, producer, animators and screenwriters who nominate films in their area of expertise.

But according to Sterritt, their most important criteria is entertainment value and popularity. Then comes prestige.

Another factor: Every year, the big studios wage heavy promotional campaigns on behalf of their big budget films to ensure every voter watches them. And because the big advertising dollars are going to a select number of films, smaller independent films are often squeezed out of sight of voters.

Sterritt says the nomination list can be broken up into audience-pleasers like "Django Unchained" and "Silver Linings Playbook," fringe art films like "Beasts of the Southern Wild," and films that are both accessible to mass audiences and preserve the prestige of Hollywood -- "Argo,""Life of Pi" and "Les Miserables."

"They don't want people to forget for a single moment that they are in touch with the taste of the American public," Sterritt said.

Dawson classifies the tastes of the Academy as "middlebrow," saying its members consist of educated, upper-middle class, predominantly white male voters who don't want to alienate the average movie goer. He explains that films that challenge the conventions of cinema, experiment with the boundaries of film, or those dramatically out of line with the values of the middle class will not be chosen.

"Oscar-nominated films have middlebrow bias toward films that have closures and leave us feeling, if not better, than better with ourselves for having watched it," Dawson said.

"Lincoln" is an example of a film that makes audiences feel good by appealing to their better nature, Dixon said. "By giving 'Lincoln' 12 nominations, they're saying, we hear you, we know you want a film that is reassuring, that convinces you that in this time of difficulty, like during the Civil War, we are going to get through it," he said.

"It's about how it can take us away to a 120-minute journey where we can experience something through these technical proficiencies," said Dawson. "They want to promote films that promote Hollywood and make Hollywood the most legitimate and rightful source of entertainment." In other words, the Academy Awards show is a big advertisement for the movies.

"There are film journals, universities and institutions that compile lists of noteworthy films with serious critiques if one wants film evaluations," said Dawson. "If one wants to see Robert Downey Jr. and Julia Roberts hand a trophy to Daniel Day Lewis, one watches the Oscars."

What combination of circumstances compels a human being to commit the most inhuman of crimes? Can science in any way help to understand these horrific events and provide any clues on how to prevent them in the future?

Wednesday night, Miles O' Brien explored these question's in "Mind of a Rampage Killer." The film sought to understand whether genetics or environment turns a seemingly happy child into a troubled youth.

Tonight at 7 p.m. ET, join him for a live chat where he and Katherine Newman, dean of the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences at Johns Hopkins, will answer your questions.

Support Your Local PBS Station

There are few places in Washington as grand as the Supreme Court. The staircases sweep, the marble columns soar, and the carved archways inside guide visitors down hushed hallways. The chamber itself, with its velvet drapes, elevated bench and rich history, makes you drop your voice to a whisper once you're inside.

When Justice Sonia Sotomayor enters the lawyers' lounge down the hall, it's easy to hear her coming. Her voice arrives before she does, as she greets the guards by name, calls every other person she passes "sweetie," and generally brings gusts of fresh air with her wherever she goes. On a tour of her upstairs chambers, she describes the art on her walls in detail.

It's as if the Bronx has come to Washington.

But as we sat down to talk about her intensely personal biography, "My Beloved World," (Knopf) there was little talk about her work on the highest court in the land.

That was in part by design. Experience has taught me that most justices -- with the most notable exception being Antonin Scalia -- are notoriously squeamish about weighing in on anything that might seem to betray their opinion on a matter that might come before the court.

Sotomayor -- so honest and forthright about issues as personal as her father's alcoholism and her cousin's drug addiction -- also knows better than to be that candid when it comes to talking about her work on the court.

I did ask her about affirmative action -- an approach she heartily endorses in her book. "To doubt the worth of minority students' achievement when they succeed is really only to present another face of the prejudice that would deny them a chance even to try," she writes.

But as we sat at the court this week, hours after she shed her robe from a morning spent on the bench, she would not even go that far.

"Be careful about using that word," she warned when I suggested she supports affirmative action. Even though she benefited from 1970s-era affirmative action recruiting efforts, she wants to cast it differently.

"It's just that...people approach everything in life with its worst," she said. "And I do something very different in life. I try to find the best in everything. And if you try to find the best in people, they will usually rise up to your expectation. And if you look for the worst, you're going to find it, because there is no perfect thing."

It's hard to argue that point with a woman who grew up in a home where English was scarcely spoken, and who began administering her own insulin injections at the age of seven.

When she sweeps through the hallways of the Supreme Court now -- more than three and a half years into a lifetime appointment -- it's fair to say expecting the best has been a winning formula for the 58-year old justice.

And along the way, she has instinctively learned when to temper her opinions. During her Senate confirmation hearings, the former federal appeals court judge said permitting cameras in the court's august chambers sounded like a good idea. But now she hesitates.

"I haven't made up my mind finally," she said, with a smile that suggested she would not tell me if she had. "But I'm now beginning to see the other side of the arguments."

"It helps being in the room, doesn't it?" I said.

"It certainly does, on so many different levels," she replied.

Indeed.

Support Your Local PBS Station

Watch Video | Listen to the Audio

RAY SUAREZ: There may be hope yet for bringing the national epidemic of obesity under control. At least the latest numbers on calories and fast food released today indicated possible progress.

For years, health officials have warned about Americans' growing girth. Now research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests the fight against fat may be having an effect. Among the findings, American children consumed fewer calories in 2010 than a decade before, seven percent less for boys, four percent less for girls. And for adults, fast food accounted for just over 11 percent of the calories consumed in 2010, down from nearly 13 percent in 2006.

The researchers acknowledge the changes are small and can't be fully explained. But public campaigns against obesity have intensified in recent years. Last September, for instance, New York City's Board of Health limited sugared drinks and sodas to 16 ounces or less. Mayor Michael Bloomberg praised the prohibition that takes effect Mar. 12^th.

MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, I- New York City: This is the single biggest step any city I think has ever taken to curb obesity, but certainly not the last step that lots of cities are going to take. And we believe that it will help save lives.

RAY SUAREZ: And, today, continuing her long-running Let's Move campaign, first lady Michelle Obama , along with Big Bird of "Sesame Street," issued new public service announcements encouraging kids to get active and eat healthy.

FIRST LADY MICHELLE OBAMA: No matter what your age, it's important to get your body moving every single day to help keep you healthy.

BIG BIRD, "Sesame Street": Look, Mrs. Obama, I'm getting moving right now by jogging.

RAY SUAREZ: If a healthy trend is developing, it still has a long way to go. As of 2012, the CDC estimated more than one-third of American adults and one out of three of children were obese.

We examine today's numbers and the larger challenges obesity still presents with two people who have studied the epidemic closely. Michael Moss is a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer for The New York Times. His new book, "Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us," looks at how companies have contributed to weight gain. And Dr. William Dietz is the former director of the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity at the CDC.

Michael Moss, let me start with you.

I know there are caveats and things to be further explained, but just the gross statistics, adults consuming fewer calories from fast food, children consuming fewer calories overall, that's good news, isn't it?

MICHAEL MOSS, The New York Times, "Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us": Well, that's fabulous news for nutritionists, who are concerned about these foods.

I mean, these are among the foods that we all hate to love because they're calorically dense. They pack in huge amounts of sugar, fat, and salt into small packages, and no doubt have contributed greatly to the obesity epidemic, as well as other health concerns, diabetes, et cetera, in this country.

RAY SUAREZ: Dr. Dietz, is there a not-so-fast moment waiting here? Is it -- are you worried about getting too happy about this report?

DR. WILLIAM DIETZ, Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Official: I'm not sure this is good news. When we look at the obesity statistics, the prevalence, the frequency has stayed flat in girls and is increasing in boys.

But with a decrease of 150 calories in boys and 80 calories in girls, which this study demonstrated, we would expect weight loss. The only way that we can explain the decline in calories and the increase in obesity in boys, flat in girls, is that physical activity has declined. And if that's the case, that's a real concern, because physical activity plays a major role in the prevention of chronic diseases, including obesity.

RAY SUAREZ: So, what's the assignment now? Is it stringing together more years of that declining consumption along with, as you suggest, increased physical activity?

DR. WILLIAM DIETZ: Well, for sure we need to decrease consumption, particularly of specific products which contribute excessive calories to the diets of children and adolescents.

RAY SUAREZ: Carb consumption as well.

DR. WILLIAM DIETZ: Well, sugar drinks are the main source of sugar, but pizzas, another big source of calories which hasn't gotten as much attention.

But, by the same token, we need to increase physical activity, because physical activity reduces the risk factors associated with obesity, like elevated cholesterol, like elevated insulin and glucose levels, like elevated blood pressure.

RAY SUAREZ: Michael Moss, along with knowing the raw statistics, is it important to know why? Could it be from economic factors, that a lot of people just had less money to spend on all kinds of things, including food? Or would you want to know that it's the fact that the messages from the big voices in the culture finally are taking hold?

MICHAEL MOSS: You know, Americans are becoming much more concerned about the food that we put in our mouths, but, yes, there's a couple cautionary notes beyond those mentioned by Dr. Dietz.

One, the data comes from the recession period, when people were trying to save money by cutting back on eating out of the home. The other cautionary note is the question, you know, what were they replacing these fast foods with? And in my reporting for the book, I found that over the years recently, fast food-type products have been moving into the grocery store, where you see more entirely prepared meals ready to eat in the school lunchroom or at home that have almost the caloric loads and the salt-sugar-fat loads as fast food restaurants.

So it becomes a question of, OK, you're cutting back on fast food, but what are you replacing with those, and are those in fact healthier for people?

RAY SUAREZ: Do you agree that there's a lot more that we have to know in order to understand what's going on here?

DR. WILLIAM DIETZ: Oh, absolutely we do.

But I think that the concern that I have that about the potential explanation for these findings -- that is, a decrease in physical activity -- should increase the urgency of restoring physical education programs to schools, of restoring recess to schools, of making our communities more physical activity-friendly.

RAY SUAREZ: Do you worry about the trend that Michael Moss brought up of, well, maybe we're going to fast food restaurants less often, but the food that we're buying to eat at home is more like fast food food?

DR. WILLIAM DIETZ: Absolutely.

I think that the food companies, as Michael has pointed out, have really painted themselves into a corner, because the same characteristics or the same nutrients which make food so tasty -- that is salt, sodium, and fat -- are the same characteristics that make them unhealthy. So his point about what people are replacing those foods with is well-taken.

RAY SUAREZ: Michael Moss, one of the less ballyhooed statistics was that people who were already obese consumed more fast food in this same period. And these are the people who were already in danger, weren't they?

MICHAEL MOSS: It's so distressing to hear that, too, because within the food industry, the heaviest consumers, the heaviest consumers of the worst foods were typically referred to by companies as heavy users.

And companies would put most of their marketing and efforts on encouraging those consumers to maintain their high levels of consumption. And you see that across the board, whether it's grocery manufacturers or fast food concerns focusing on those people who are eating lots, because it makes more economic sense for companies to focus their marketing on those individuals.

And, as you point out, those are the least people -- those are the people who should be least eating those foods, and the people we should be most concerned about. So in the grocery store, when you see low-fat products, low-sugar products, alternatives to the mainline items that companies sell, often, the people eating those are the people we least need to have eating those.

RAY SUAREZ: So, is the food industry on board or not in getting Americans to eat healthier and weigh less?

DR. WILLIAM DIETZ: Well, I think that there are efforts under way.

Certainly, some companies are doing more than others. But they have gotten the message, both, I think, from the public health advocates and increasingly from the public that things need to change. The question is how rapidly are they changing and will that -- how big a difference will those changes make?

RAY SUAREZ: Michael Moss, I'm sorry I cut you off.

MICHAEL MOSS: No, just one of the problems for the companies is that they're beholden not only to consumers, but to Wall Street.

And the fierce competition among companies themselves and their obligation to shareholders to keep profits up has really also boxed in these companies, as they move forward, and decide how much can they really afford to pull back on these loads of salt, sugar, fat, in order to create a healthier product without jeopardizing their sales?

RAY SUAREZ: So, with all your cautions in mind, we will keep an eye on this.

Michael Moss, Dr. Dietz, thank you both.

DR. WILLIAM DIETZ: You're very welcome.