U.S. Wants Global Trafficking Report To Hit Home

The U.S. State Department releases its report on human trafficking every year, naming the countries it feels aren't doing enough to combat modern-day slavery.

The department released a new report Wednesday, and NPR's Michele Kelemen is reporting on the story for All Things Considered. One thing that jumped out at us is that the State Department wants the report to hit home this year.

Luis CdeBaca, the official in charge of the office that monitors and combats trafficking, put it this way:

"This year's report looks at things like the fishing industry - and actually raises a question that I think all of us should be asking: Which is how much of my life is impacting modern day slavery? Do I know where the shrimp is being caught or processed that is on my plate? Do I know where the cotton is coming from that's on my clothes? ... And instead of it being somebody else's problem how can I make it my problem? How can I actually do something about it?"

The State Department has worked with a nonprofit organization on a website, slaveryfootprint.org, where consumers can take a survey that answers the question: How many slaves work for me?

The idea is to alert consumers to who works to create the products they consume.

"As consumers start to make their voices heard, that'll be a real big driver out in the private sector," CdeBaca told Michele.

Consumer pressure has had an impact on industry standards: Last month, four major Western retailers announced they'll help finance safety upgrades at apparel factories in Bangladesh following the collapse of a garment complex in April that resulted in the deaths of more than 1,000 people.

NPR's Talk of the Nation devoted a segment last year to modern-day slavery in the U.S. Some of those workers were brought from overseas.

"We need to keep our eyes open. We need to stay vigilant, and we need to realize that this can appear in almost any industry," Bradley Myles, executive director and CEO of the Polaris Project, said on that program. "There's been a case of elder care workers in a nursing home. There's been a case of golf course groundskeepers in a fancy golf course. There have been cases in the fishing industry and nail salons and restaurants, all these different places where we need to stay vigilant."

Nina Totenberg Answers Your Supreme Court Questions

With the Supreme Court expected to hand down big decisions this month — including rulings on voting rights, affirmative action and same-sex marriage — we've been talking a lot behind the scenes about how the court works. So we asked you what you really wanted to know and then got answers from NPR's Supreme Court reporter extraordinaire, Nina Totenberg.

How does the Supreme Court determine what order and dates to release their decisions? — Dan Wentzel

As the chief justice says, "We release them when they are ready." In other words, when the justices all agree that the majority opinion is finished, and the dissents and concurring opinions are finished. Assuming the opinion can be printed in time, the opinion is then released on the next day the court is sitting. At this time of year, the court typically adds days to its schedule.

Do the justices get together and discuss cases before each renders an opinion? How do they let each other know what their final opinions are? How is it decided who writes the majority opinion and who, if anyone, writes dissenting opinion(s)? — Wes Brown

After the briefs are filed, and the case is argued, the justices meet that week in conference. Nobody else is there. They discuss each argued case and vote. This is only a tentative vote, and from time to time a justice, or more than one, will change his or her mind. But that is relatively unusual. If the chief justice is in the majority, he assigns the opinion. If he is not, then the senior justice in the majority makes the assignment. So, if you look at the Arizona voting case this week, the chief justice was in the minority; the senior justice would have been Antonin Scalia, and in this case, he assigned the opinion to himself.

The dissenters usually agree among themselves who will write for them.

Once an opinion is assigned, the justice who gets the assignment spends considerable time, usually about four weeks, writing an opinion in chambers. It may go through many drafts there before being circulated to the other justices. And then the fun begins. The work is almost all in writing, with each justice writing to the author what his problems may be with the circulated draft. And each time the author writes a new draft, it is circulated to everyone. Eventually, in most cases anyway, four or more other justices agree to join the circulated draft, adding up to a court majority of five or more.

In the process, there often is quite a battle in the text between the majority author and the dissenters, with each answering each other's arguments.

How much of the writing is done by clerks and how much by the justices themselves? — Andy Gerschutz

It depends. Some of the best writers on the court — for example, Justice Scalia — make no secret of the fact that the first draft in chambers is written by a law clerk, on instructions from the justice as to what the opinion is to say. But the subsequent drafts, rewritten and reworked by the justice, often bear little resemblance to the first draft. Whatever the process in chambers — and it is up to the individual justice how he or she arranges the work of the office — you can be sure that the final product represents the ideas, and usually the writing style, of the justice. There are some justices whose writing is so unique to themselves that I think I could tell the author even if his or her name was not on it. The analogy is to an opera singer. The notes (here, basics) may be the same, but not the way they are sung.

Do the justices hang out together when they are not in session? As in, are they friends? — @JoeWalberg

I think each considers the other members to be friends, of a sort. They don't hang out together much. They live together at work for life, and that is, for the most part, enough. They certainly see each other at social functions and sometimes do things together, but not often.

How do justices determine if they have a conflict of interest in a case they are presiding over, how do they report this, and are they required to recuse themselves if there is a conflict of interest? — Shandy Melson

Technically, they are not required to recuse themselves because the judicial ethics rules do not all apply to the Supreme Court. But, with few exceptions, they treat the ethics rules as if they were in fact binding. There are many different kinds of ethics rules, but, for example, justices who have investments and stocks keep records of them and recuse from any case involving one of their investments. Even one share of stock would mean recusal. Because of this, many justices try to invest in large funds that do not provide direct conflicts.

When a justice recuses from a case, the reason is not announced. Just the recusal is announced.

Why aren't video cameras allowed during oral argument? — Andy Gerschutz

Just as Congress makes its own rules, so does the Supreme Court. The justices have different explanations for why cameras are excluded, but even some justices who initially favored cameras have come to believe that it would make the court into too much of an infotainment spectacle, with oral argument snippets being taken out of context and misunderstood on everything from a 60-second news report to The Daily Show. Another reason some have cited is security. Justices, for the most part, lead regular lives, shop alone in the supermarket, and drive themselves to work. Given the ivory tower they live in, that probably is a good thing. But if their faces were on TV all the time, they very likely would have to have much more personal security, further isolating them from regular life.

The court, in an effort to be more transparent, does now post the audio of all arguments online, on Friday of the week in which the case is argued. And occasionally, the court, in very big cases, does agree to release same-day audio.

Why can't I publicly demonstrate my views at the Court anymore? — Jenn Phalen

You can demonstrate on the sidewalk adjacent to the plaza but not on the plaza itself. Both are right in front of the court. And that has been the rule for a very long time.

After A Marine's Suicide, A Family Recalls Missed Red Flags

Last year, more U.S. service members took their own lives than died in combat. And despite the drawdown of troops from Afghanistan, the pullout in Iraq, and hundreds of new programs designed to help troubled servicemen and women, the number of suicides continues to rise.

Nicholas Rodriguez is one such young man. Military service was practically a foregone conclusion for Nick. His family's history in the armed forces stretches back to the Revolutionary War. His grandfather fought in World War II, his father was a Marine and his stepfather's brother died while on active duty in Afghanistan.

So when Nick joined the Marines at 21, he felt he was honoring both his country and his family. He "wanted to go and help the world in some way," explains his stepfather, Michael Geiger.

Nick left for Afghanistan in 2010. His mother, Anna Rodriguez, was relieved when he returned from combat by year's end. But when Nick came home to Whitehall, Pa., for Christmas, "there were cracks and I started to see them," Anna says. Nick was "jumpy" and "on guard," she says. "I was confused, 'cause my son was hurting and I didn't know what to do."

Nick returned to Camp Pendleton in California in early January 2011. He had headaches. He was troubled by memories. Less than two months later, he took his own life.

"In hindsight now, I look back and think, 'Well, these were all red flags that were going up and we never saw them," Michael says. "We didn't know they were red flags."

Before Nick's death, Anna and Michael say, they had never heard of post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. By sharing Nick's story, they hope families of other servicemen and women can learn to read the signs that they could not — and can find resources to help.

"Coming Home: Nick's Story," was produced by Elizabeth Meister and Dan Collison of Long Haul Productions.

More Of 'Coming Home'

For the complete audio of "Coming Home," and for slideshows and videos about Anna, Michael, Nick and suicide in the military, visit Long Haul Productions' website.

Tropical Storm Barry Heads Toward Mexico, Forecasters Say

The National Hurricane Center has issued coastal warnings in the Gulf of Mexico regarding Tropical Storm Barry. The second named storm of the 2013 hurricane season, Barry is currently in the southwest corner of the gulf; it is expected to make landfall in Mexico Thursday morning.

The center says an Air Force reconnaissance aircraft determined Wednesday that the storm, formerly called Tropical Depression Two, had strengthened. Barry is currently about 75 miles east-northeast of Veracruz, Mexico.

Current forecasts show that Barry is only about 50 percent likely to hit Mexico's coast with sustained tropical-storm-force winds (40 mph or higher). As of 2:45 ET p.m. Wednesday, the storm was moving to the west at a speed of 10 miles an hour, with maximum winds of 40 mph.

Thanks to NPR's Russell Lewis for alerting us to this development.

More Of 'Coming Home'

For the complete audio of "Coming Home," and for slideshows and videos about Anna, Michael, Nick and suicide in the military, visit Long Haul Productions' website.

And The Winner Of The World Food Prize Is ... The Man From Monsanto

Ever heard of the World Food Prize? It's sometimes called the "Nobel Prize for food and agriculture," but it has struggled to get people's attention. Prize winners tend to be agricultural insiders, and many are scientists. Last year's laureate, for instance, was Daniel Hillel, a pioneer of water-saving "micro-irrigation."

This year, though, the World Food Prize is likely to get some publicity, some of it in the form of anger and protests. The prize will go to three scientists who played prominent roles in creating genetically engineered crops: Marc Van Montagu, Mary-Dell Chilton and Robert Fraley.

Of the three, Fraley is by far the youngest, but also the most pivotal and divisive. He's spent his entire career at Monsanto. He was hired in 1981 as one of the company's very first molecular biologists, led the company's intense drive to sell genetically engineered crops in the 1990s, and is now the company's chief technology officer. In fact, if there's a single person who most personifies Monsanto's controversial role in American agriculture, it's probably Robb Fraley.

(A bit of self-promotion: I told much of this story in a book about the origins of genetically engineered crops, Lords of the Harvest, published in 2001. During research for the book, I also interviewed Fraley, Van Montagu and Chilton.)

The winners were announced Wednesday at the U.S. State Department, with Secretary of State John Kerry contributing his own remarks. It's hard to imagine a similar event taking place in Europe, where government authorities have refused to approve the planting or importation of some of these GMO crops.

Today's event reunited former scientific rivals. Thirty years ago, at a scientific meeting in Miami Beach, each of the award winners separately presented the results of experiments showing their first success in inserting genes into plants.

At the time, Van Montagu was at the University of Ghent, in Belgium, and Mary-Dell Chilton was at Washington University in St. Louis. Both were far more prominent in scientific circles than Fraley. They also later worked with biotech companies (Plant Genetic Systems and Syngenta, respectively), but neither had as much impact in the business world as Fraley.

The World Food Prize Foundation is a private, nonprofit organization with its headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa. It was set up in 1986 at the suggestion of Norman Borlaug, who had won the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in the "green revolution" that increased grain harvests worldwide. Major funding for the prize, which is worth $250,000, was provided by John Ruan, a prominent Des Moines businessman. In its early years, the award was sponsored by General Foods.

The prize has been criticized in the past for close relationships with agribusiness companies. Last year, activist groups opposed to genetically modified food staged an "Occupy World Food Prize" protest during the formal awarding of the prize in Des Moines.

More Of 'Coming Home'

For the complete audio of "Coming Home," and for slideshows and videos about Anna, Michael, Nick and suicide in the military, visit Long Haul Productions' website.