On May 10, a Guatemalan court made history when it found General Efraín Ríos Montt guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity committed while he controlled the government in the early 1980s. This represented the first time any nation has convicted a former head of state for genocide, and it was a watershed moment for global efforts to seek legal accountability for human rights atrocities. Although the Constitutional Court partially annulled the judgment on May 20, the debate it unleashed continues in full force.

The case is also an opportunity for Americans, who have generally failed to acknowledge our responsibilities for brutal Cold War-era repression in Central America, to reflect on a genocide in which the U.S. government was arguably complicit. Guatemala suffered one of the most brutal cases of government repression in the Western Hemisphere, a 34-year-long conflict whose goals were guided by U.S. foreign policy. The Guatemalan truth commission estimated that 200,000 people were killed, 50,000 of whom disappeared, while also concluding that the state committed genocide against the country’s indigenous peoples. Thousands of villages were razed, hundreds of massacres were committed, and torture, rape, and abuse were institutionalized through “scorched earth” policies that were most intense under Ríos Montt’s government.

While more than 90 percent of serious violations were committed by the state, Guatemalan courts have pursued only a handful of prosecutions. The case against Ríos Montt and co-defendant José Mauricio Rodriguez Sanchez, his former intelligence director (who was acquitted), represents both the first time the country has brought a case against high-ranking leaders and the first time it has indicted anyone for genocide.

Seven former bank employees and contractors have come forward with allegations that “Bank of America Corp. (BAC), the second-biggest U.S. lender, rewarded staff with cash bonuses and gift cards for meeting quotas tied to sending distressed homeowners into foreclosure.” In addition, the former employees report that they were encouraged to “improperly disqualify” borrowers from loan modifications through the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), falsify or effectively “misplace” documents, mislead borrowers on the status of their loan modification applications, and generally delay the process while raking in fees. A four-year employee explained that “loan collectors who put at least 10 customers into foreclosure, including those who were in trial modifications, were given a $500 bonus.” The employee reports paint a picture of a culture of widespread abuses across the loan modification process, and exemplify why greater federal oversight is essential to creating a financial services marketplace that is fair to consumers.

It was the news that (we’re guessing) launched a million Google searches. The question: “What is metadata?”

Recent revelations that the NSA is netting tons of our metadata prompted Americans to investigate what that means, exactly. But the definition of metadata, and recent coverage, doesn’t tell the whole story of why this news is concerning. Metadata is information about your messages -- who sent and received them, when they were created, where you were when they were sent, and how they were sent.

It doesn’t contain the content of the call itself – but that’s partly why it’s dangerous: Metadata holders can manipulate it to tell almost any story about you.

If someone has the metadata from your phone, they can discern not only who you know, but how frequently you talk. They can develop a rough outline of your personal life.

We can infer a lot about you by knowing if you frequently call a plumber, pizza parlor or porn site.   What you say to them is only marginally more informative.  But, other calls are more ambiguous and loaded with meaning.

Calling a medical specialist a lot may tell me you have a chronic medical condition, or that your wife is a doctor. Calling an attorney might mean you have legal problems, or that you’re a journalist doing research for a story. Investigators, advertisers, or any other party that has it can take the metadata they’ve gathered and then cross-reference this information to make educated guesses as to your activity. Are you speaking with an oncologist or an obstetrician?  A divorce lawyer or estate planner? But again, the keyword there is guesses.

On June 13, the Gannett media corporation announced a plan to buy the Belo media corporation.  The New York Times screamed the amount of the planned purchase - - $1.5 billion in cash.  Of course big numbers get attention.  Further down in the story you might read that Gannett will increase the number of its television stations from 23 to 43.  The fact that this follows a recent wave of media consolidation during the Obama years, does not get attention beyond the trade press.  But it should.  

As the Senate prepares for hearings this week to question Tom Wheeler, the President’s choice to lead the FCC, it should ask him where he stands on media consolidation.   

There was a time when most local television and radio stations were owned and controlled by local broadcasters who actually lived in the communities they were licensed to serve.  There was a time when the number of broadcast stations any one group could own was 7 and then it was extended to 12 , and then the great unraveling occurred in 1996 , the Clinton years. 

During the Obama years, despite the early promises of the President to increase media diversity, local mom and pop broadcast stations have fallen by the wayside and media consolidation has actually increased.  In addition to Gannett, Media General announced earlier this month that it was merging with Young Broadcasting, creating a broadcast conglomerate of 30 stations. 

But Gannett and Media General are small players.

Early childhood advocates received some big shots of energy last week. First,  former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared her dedication to early childhood, including her participation in a national initiative cleverly titled “Too Small to Fail.”  Second, the J.B. and M.K. Pritzker Family Foundation, announced social impact bonds and $20 million in investments in the first phase of its public-private partnerships projects known as the  “Early Childhood Innovation Accelerator” project.

As an advisor to the early childhood working group, I had the good fortune of watching these events unfold last Thursday and Friday. Both announcements were made in Chicago, at the annual Clinton Global Initiative America meeting, which brings together more than 1,000 leaders from business, government and non-governmental organizations.

Read more