Podcasts about AGS

Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday announced a $750,000 settlement with American Mint LLC over its negative option subscription practices — marking the company's second major enforcement action following a 2005 Assurance of Voluntary Compliance. The case underscores how state AGs continue to use UDAP authority to address deceptive subscription practices, even without specific auto-renewal laws on the books. For legal, compliance, and marketing teams, this settlement highlights the importance of clear, conspicuous disclosures, express consent, and accessible cancellation methods — and serves as a reminder that legacy agreements and practices remain enforceable decades later. Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Paul L. Singer, Abigail Stempson, Beth Bolen Chun, and Andrea deLorimier.

In Part One of our two-part series on the NAAG Fall Consumer Protection Conference, we cover key takeaways from the Attorneys General panel and a discussion on price transparency featuring Kelley Drye's Beth Chun. Hear insights from state AGs on enforcement priorities, compliance expectations, and the growing focus on transparent pricing laws nationwide. Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Paul L. Singer, Abigail Stempson, Beth Bolen Chun, and Andrea deLorimier.

Last time we spoke about the Soviet-Japanese Border Conflict. The border between Soviet Manchuria and Japanese-occupied territories emerges not as a single line but as a mosaic of contested spaces, marks, and memories. A sequence of incidents, skirmishes along the Chaun and Tumen rivers, reconnaissance sorties, and the complex diplomacy of Moscow, Tokyo, and peripheral actors to trace how risk escalated from routine patrols to calibrated leverage. On the ground, terrain functioned as both obstacle and argument: ridges like Changkufeng Hill shaping sightlines, river valleys shaping decisions, and markers weathered by snow, wind, and drift. In command tents, officers translated terrain into doctrine: contingency plans, supply routes, and the precarious calculus of restraint versus escalation. Both nations sought to establish firmer defensive barriers against the other. Inevitably they were destined to clash, but how large that clash would become, nobody knew.   #176 The Changkufeng Incident Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. In the last episode we broke down a general history of the Soviet-Japanese Border Conflict and how it escalated significantly by 1938. Colonel Inada Masazum serving as chief of the 2nd Operations Section within the Operations Bureau in March of 1938 would play a significant role in this story. When the Japanese command's attention was drawn to the area of Changkufeng, consideration was given to the ownership and importance of the disputed high ground. Inada and his operations section turned to an appraisal of the geography. The officers had been impressed by the strategic importance of the Tumen, which served to cut off the hill country from North Korea. In the Changkufeng area, the river was a muddy 600 to 800 meters wide and three to five meters deep. Japanese engineers had described rowing across the stream as "rather difficult."  Russian roads on the left bank were very good, according to Japanese intelligence. Heavy vehicles moved easily; the Maanshan section comprised the Russians' main line of communications in the rear. To haul up troops and materiel, the Russians were obliged to use trucks and ships, for there were no railways apart from a four-kilometer line between the harbor and town of Novokievsk. Near Changkufeng, hardly any roadways were suitable for vehicular traffic. On the right, or Korean, bank of the Tumen, there were only three roads suitable for vehicular traffic, but even these routes became impassable after a day or two of rain. In the sector between Hill 52 to the south and Shachaofeng to the north, the most pronounced eminences were Chiangchunfeng and the humps of Changkufeng. Rocky peaks were characteristically shaped like inverted T's, which meant many dead angles against the crests. The gentle slopes would allow tanks to move but would restrict their speed, as would the ponds and marshes. In general, the terrain was treeless and afforded little cover against aircraft. Against ground observation or fire, corn fields and tall miscanthus grass could provide some shielding. Between Chiangchunfeng and the Tumen, which would have to serve as the main route of Japanese supply, the terrain was particularly sandy and hilly. This rendered foot movement difficult but would reduce the effectiveness of enemy bombs and shells. The high ground east of Khasan afforded bases for fire support directed against the Changkufeng region. Plains characterized the rest of the area on the Soviet side, but occasional streams and swamps could interfere with movement of tanks and trucks. The only towns or villages were Novokievsk, Posyet, Yangomudy, and Khansi. At Kozando there were a dozen houses; at Paksikori, a few. The right bank was farmed mainly by Koreans, whose scattered cottages might have some value for billeting but offered none for cover. On the left bank, the largest hamlets were Fangchuanting, with a population of 480 dwelling in 73 huts, and Yangkuanping, where there were 39 cottages. Shachaofeng was uninhabited. Japanese occupation of Changkufeng would enable observation of the plain stretching east from Posyet Bay, although intelligence made no mention of Soviet naval bases, submarine pens, or airstrips in the immediate area of Posyet, either in existence or being built in 1938. As Inada knew, the Japanese Navy judged that Posyet Bay might have another use, as a site for Japanese landing operations in the event of war. In Russian hands, the high ground would endanger the Korean railway. This line, which started from Najin in northeastern Korea, linked up with the vital system in Manchuria at the town of Tumen and provided a short cut, if not a lifeline, between Japan and the Kwantung Army and Manchuria from across the Sea of Japan. Even from relatively low Changkufeng, six or seven miles of track were exposed to Soviet observation between Hongui and Shikai stations. The port of Najin, with its fortress zone, lay 11 miles southwest; Unggi lay even nearer. It was not the danger of Japanese shelling of Vladivostok, at an incredible range of 80 miles that was at stake but the more realistic hypothesis of Russian shelling of the rail line, and Russian screening of the Soviet side of the border. Hills and questions were thought to have two sides. It was the consensus of Japanese that Changkufeng Hill's potential value to the Russians far outweighed its possible benefits to them, or at least that the Japanese had more to lose if the Russians took the high ground by the Tumen. Inada nurtured few illusions concerning the intrinsic value of the heights. Despite the fact that the high command always had good reasons for quiescence in the north, Inada believed that the latest border difficulty could not be overlooked. By mid-July 1938 Inada's thoughts crystallized. The Japanese would conduct a limited reconnaissance in force known as iryoku teisatsu in the strategic sense. Whereas, at the tactical schoolbook level, this might mean the dispatch of small forces into enemy territory to seek local combat intelligence, at the Imperial General Headquarters level the concept was far more sweeping. There would also be useful evidence of mobilization and other buildup procedures. The affair at Changkufeng was merely a welcome coincidence, something started by the Russians but liable to Japanese exploration. Inada had no intention of seizing territory, of becoming involved in a war of attrition at a remote and minor spot, or of provoking hostilities against the USSR. The Russians would comprehend the nature of the problem, too. If they were interested in interfering seriously with the Japanese, there were numberless better locations to cause trouble along the Manchurian front; those were the places to watch. The cramped Changkufeng sector, described as "narrow like a cat's brow," could too readily be pinched off from Hunchun to render it of strategic value to either side. The bog land to the north interfered with the use of armored forces, while artillery sited on the heights along the Tumen in Korea could as easily control the area as batteries emplaced east of the lake. It was Inada's professional opinion that the Russians could commit three or four infantry divisions there at most, with no mechanized corps—no heavy tanks, in particular. No decisive battle could be waged, although, once the Russians became involved, they might have to cling to the hill out of a sense of honor. The military action would be meaningless even if the Japanese let the Russians have the heights. For their part, the Japanese would ostensibly be fighting to secure the boundary and to hold Changkufeng peak, beyond which they would not move a step onto Soviet soil. There would be no pursuit operations. Troop commitment would be limited to about one division without tank support. Japanese Air Force intervention would be forbidden. Matters would be directed entirely by Imperial General Headquarters working through the Korea Army chain of command and carried out by the local forces. Calm, clear, and dispassionate overall estimates and instructions would be based on materials available only in Tokyo. The command would not allow the Kwantung Army to touch the affair. Inada foresaw that the Japanese government might also seek a settlement through diplomacy. Although border demarcation was desirable and should be sought, the command would not insist on it, nor would it demand permanent occupation of Changkufeng summit. As soon as reconnaissance objectives had been achieved, the local forces would be withdrawn. As Inada described it "In the process, we would have taught the Russians some respect and given them a lesson concerning their repeated, high-handed provocations and intrusions. If a show of force sufficed to facilitate the negotiations and cause the Russians to back down, so much the better; the affair would be over and my point proved." The instrument for carrying out Inada's strategic design appeared to be ideal, the 19th Division, strenuously trained and high-spirited. It could be expected to perform very well if unleashed within defined limits. Colonel Suetaka was just the commander to direct local operations. Since he had been pleading to fight in China, an operation at Changkufeng might prove to be an excellent "safety valve." His staff was full of experienced, fierce warriors eager for battle. Until recently, the Korea Army commanding general had wisely kept the aggressive division away from Changkufeng Hill, but now Imperial general headquarters had its own overriding ideas and needs. How could the Japanese ensure that any military action would remain limited if the Russians chose to respond with vigor? Naturally, one infantry division, without armor or air support, could not withstand all of the Soviet forces in the maritime province. Inada answered that the mission to be assigned the 19th Division was merely the recapture of Changkufeng crest. If the Japanese side had to break off the operation, evacuation would be effected voluntarily and resolutely on Imperial general headquarters responsibility, without considerations of "face." At worst, the Japanese might lose one division, but the affair would be terminated at the Tumen River without fail. "Even so, we ought to be able to prove our theory as well as demonstrate our true strength to the Russians." In case the Soviets opted for more than limited war, the Japanese were still not so overextended in China that they could not alter their strategic disposition of troops. Although the Kwantung Army's six divisions were outnumbered four to one and the Japanese were not desirous of a war at that moment, the first-class forces in Manchuria could make an excellent showing. In addition, the high command possessed armor, heavy artillery, fighters, and bombers, held in check in Manchuria and Korea, as well as reserves in the homeland. There was also the 104th Division, under tight Imperial general headquarters control, in strategic reserve in southern Manchuria. Inada recalled "How would the Russians react? That was the answer I sought. Victory in China depended on it." By mid-July, the high command, at Inada's urging, had worked out a plan titled, "Imperial General headqaurters Essentials for Dealing with the Changkufeng Incident." Tada's telegram of 14 July to Koiso described succinctly the just-decided policy: the central authorities concurred with the Korea Army's opinion regarding the Changkufeng affair, then in embryo. Considering that Changkufeng Hill posed a direct threat to the frontier of Korea, Imperial General headqaurters would immediately urge the foreign ministry to lodge a stern protest. Next day, Tojo sent a telegram stating the Japanese policy of employing diplomacy; whether the Russians should be evicted by force required cautious deliberation in case the USSR did not withdraw voluntarily. On the basis of the guidance received from Imperial General headqaurters, the Korea Army drew up its own plan, "Essentials for Local Direction of the Changkufeng Incident," on 15 July. Intelligence officer Tsuchiya Sakae was sent promptly to the front from Seoul. At the same time, military authorities allowed the press to release news that Soviet troops were constructing positions inside Manchurian territory in an "obvious provocation." The government of Manchukuo was demanding an immediate withdrawal. Even then, those Japanese most closely connected with the handling of the Changkufeng Incident were not in agreement that everybody at command level was as ardent a proponent of reconnaissance in force as Inada claimed to be. Some thought that most, if not all, of his subordinates, youthful and vigorous, were in favor of the notion; others denied the existence of such an idea. Inada remained clear-cut in his own assertions. Everything done by the local Soviet forces, he insisted, must have been effected with the permission of Moscow; it was customary for the USSR not to abandon what it had once started. The Japanese Army never really thought that the Soviet Union would withdraw just as the result of diplomatic approaches. Therefore, from the outset, preparations were made to deal the Russians one decisive blow. Inada had recommended his plan, with its clear restrictions, to his colleagues and superiors; the scheme, he says, was approved 14 July "all the way up the chain of command, through the Army general staff and the ministry of war, with unexpected ease." The only real opposition, Inada recalled, came from the navy, whose staff advised the army operations staff, in all sincerity, to give up the idea of strategic reconnaissance. Inada adhered to his opinion stubbornly. He never forgot the grave look on the face of Captain Kusaka, the UN operations section chief, as the latter gave in reluctantly. The navy view was that the Changkufeng affair typified the army's aggressive policies as opposed to relative passivity on the part of the navy. Like Kusaka, Japanese Navy interviewees shared the fear that Changkufeng might prove to be the most dangerous military confrontation ever to occur between the USSR and Japan. In view of navy objections, one wonders where Inada could have drawn support for his concept of reconnaissance in force. If one accepts the comments contained in a letter from a navy ministry captain, Takagi Sokichi, to Baron Harada Kumao at the beginning of August, in the army and in a portion of the navy there existed "shallow-minded fellows who are apt to take a firm stand in the blind belief that the USSR would not really rise against us, neglecting the fact that the Russians had foreseen our weak points." Takagi also had violent things to say about "white-livered" Gaimusho elements that were playing up to the army. Although Takagi's remarks, expressed in confidence, were sharp, cautious injunctions were being delivered by the high command to the new Korea Army commander, General Nakamura Kotaro, who was about to leave for Seoul to replace Koiso. Nakamura's attitude was crucial for the course and outcome of the Changkufeng Incident. More of a desk soldier than a warrior, he characteristic ally displayed a wariness that was reinforced by the guidance provided him. This personal quality assumes even greater significance if one believes that the Russians may have initiated the Changkufeng Incident by exploiting the special opportunities afforded them by the routine replacement of the Korea Army commander, the temporary absence from Moscow of Ambassador Shigemitsu Mamoru, and the geographical as well as subjective gap between the Kwantung and Korea armies that was exposed during the Lyushkov affair. At 10:00 on 15 July Nakamura was designated army commander by the Emperor at the palace. Soon afterward, he was briefed by Imperial General headquarters officers. Hashimoto, the operations bureau chief, recalled that when he saw Nakamura off on 17 July, Hashimoto stressed prudence, limitation of any military action, and diplomatic solution of the problem. The new commanding general, Inada asserted, promised full cooperation. There was no mention, at this level, of Inada's concept of reconnaissance in force. When Nakamura reached Seoul, he found an Imperial order from Tokyo dated 16 July awaiting him. This important document stipulated that he could concentrate units under his command in Korea near the border against the trespassing Soviet forces in the Changkufeng area. Resort to force, however, was dependent upon further orders. This message was followed by a wire from Kan'in, the Army general staff chief. The Imperial order, it was explained, had been designed to support diplomatic negotiations. Simultaneous approval was granted for concentrating forces to respond swiftly in case the situation deteriorated. As for implementation of the Imperial order, discretion should be exercised in line with the opinion expressed earlier by Korea Army Headquarters. Negotiations were to be conducted in Moscow and Harbin, the location of a Soviet consulate in Manchukuo. Meanwhile, the command was dispatching two officers for purposes of liaison: Lt. Colonel Arisue Yadoru in Operations and Major Kotani Etsuo a specialist in Soviet intelligence. Inada advised Arisue that, apart from liaison flights inside the frontiers, particular care should be exercised with regard to actions that might lead to air combat. Nevertheless, although Inada stated that the Imperial order called for "a sort of military demonstration," he admitted that it meant preparatory action for an attack. The Korea Army senior staff officer, Iwasaki, recalled hearing nothing about secret intentions. Nakamura briefed his staff about the need for restraint, especially during this key period of the Wuhan operation. Koiso had disposed of speculation that he had issued an order to concentrate the 19th Division before Nakamura arrived, although he and Nakamura did have the opportunity to confer in Seoul before he departed for Japan. The Imperial order of 16 July, in response to Koiso's inquiry received in Tokyo on 14 July, had arrived in Seoul addressed to Nakamura; thereupon, the Korea Army chief of staff, Kitano, had the message conveyed to the division. By 21 July Koiso was back in Tokyo where, the day afterward, he advised the war minister, Itagaki, "to act prudently with respect to the Changkufeng problem." Why did the high command dispatch two field-grade liaison officers to Korea from the outset of the Changkufeng Incident? The Korea Army lacked operations staff. Its commander had been allotted prime responsibility, within the chain of command, for defense of northeastern Korea. At the beginning, the highest-ranking staff officer at the front was a major. Since there were no fundamental differences of opinion between the command and the forces in Korea, it was proper to send experts from Tokyo to assist. Imperial General headqaurters would observe the situation carefully, devise measures on the basis of the overall view, and issue orders which the Korea Army would implement through ordinary channels. It had not been the type of incident which required the army commander to go to the front to direct. This was the Korea Army's first test, and political as well as diplomatic problems were involved that the army in the field should not or could not handle. If Tokyo had left decisions to the division and its regiments, the latter would have been held to account, which was not proper. Imperial General headquarters had to assume responsibility and reassure local commanders of its full support. Imaoka Yutaka explained that operational guidance by Imperial General headquarters and line operations conducted by the 19th Division formed the core of the affair; the Korea Army, placed between, was "shadowy." Koiso had not been enthusiastic; this set the mood among the staff. Nakamura, who arrived with a thorough comprehension of AGS thinking, was basically passive. The Korea Army staff, in general, included no "wild boars."    There was an urgent need to monitor developments. Not only was the Korea Army unfamiliar with handling this type of incident, but many hitches occurred. There had been no practice in emergency transmission of coded wires between the Korea Army and Tokyo. Now telegram after telegram had to be sent; most were deciphered incorrectly and many were not decoded at all. Another problem centered on the lack of knowledge in Tokyo about the situation on the spot, which only visual observation could rectify. As a result, the two Army general staff experts, Arisue and Kotani, arrived in Korea on 16 July. Kotani recalled that he was to collect intelligence and assist the local authorities. One of the first duties that he and Arisue performed was to disseminate the principle that use of force required a prior Imperial order. Also on 16 July, Japanese newspapers reported that the USSR was still concentrating troops, that the Manchukuoan government was watching intently, "decisive punitive measures" were being contemplated by the Japanese-Manchukuoan authorities, and there were signs of a worsening of the crisis. Despite good reasons for this gloomy appraisal, the Japanese press had not yet given the incident page-one treatment. More alarming news was being disseminated abroad. Domei, the official Japanese news agency, reported that the situation would probably become worse unless Soviet troops were withdrawn. The position of the Japanese government impressed foreign correspondents as unusually firm. Informants characterized the Changkufeng Incident as the most serious affair since the clash on the Amur River in 1937. Irked by the Korea Army's timidity and eager for first-hand information, the Kwantung Army dispatched two observers to the front: from Intelligence, Ogoshi Kenji, and from Operations, Tsuji Masanobu. If you listen to my pacific war week by week podcast or echoes of war, you know I highlight Tsuji Masanobu as one of the most evil Japanese officers of WW2. No other way to describe this guy, he was a shithead. In his memoirs, Tsuji asserted that he and Ogoshi climbed Changkufeng Hill, discerned Soviet soldiers digging across the peak in Manchurian territory, and concluded that "probably even Tokyo could not overlook such a clear-cut case of invasion." Although his account aligned with the general thrust, Ogoshi contended that Tsuji could not have accompanied him. According to sources with the 19th Division, when Koiso learned that Tsuji and Ogoshi were disparaging the Korea Army's ability to defend Changkufeng, he ordered "those spies" ousted. Ogoshi replied that the army staff was not angry, but Koiso did become furious and ordered Ogoshi "arrested for trespassing." Ogoshi surmised that Koiso's concern was that emotional outsiders such as Tsuji could provoke trouble, perhaps even war, if they visited Changkufeng. This view was widely shared. Inada stated that he made a practice of keeping away to maintain the degree of detachment and impartiality required of high command authorities. One sidelight to the "fraternal" visit to the Changkufeng area by observers from Hsinking was provided by Lt. Colonel Katakura Tadashi, chief of the Kwantung Army's 4th Section, which handled Manchukuo affairs, primarily political direction. When Katakura visited the Operations Section, Tsuji and Ogoshi told him that an intrusion had been confirmed and that the Kwantung Army staff was studying ways to evict the Soviets. Katakura consulted Maj. General Ishiwara Kanji, acting chief of staff, who was already in possession of the draft of an operations order calling for offensive preparations by the Kwantung Army against the Russians at Changkufeng. Katakura asked for reconsideration of the order. This was not a matter to be handled solely by the operations staff. Borders and international affairs were involved; hence the 4th Section, along with the Manchukuoan government, the Gaimusho, and other agencies, were concerned. Field observers were expressing exaggerated personal opinions based on having seen Soviet sentries on a hilltop. If the matter fell within the Korea Army's defensive prerogative, that army ought to handle it. Apparently the Kwantung Army commander and Ishiwara agreed with Katakura, for the draft order was not approved. The so-called private message dispatched by a Kwantung Army staff officer just before Koiso's departure may have been provoked by this rejection of direct participation by forces under Kwantung Army command. Staff officers in Tokyo believed that Hsinking could not see the forest for the trees. In the high command's view, the Kwantung Army's deliberate escalation of a negligible frontier incident undoubtedly stemmed from a failure to grasp the strategic requirements of national defense—pursuit of the campaign in China, the nurturance of Manchukuo, and the buildup of operational readiness for the ultimate solution of the Soviet problem. The high command felt obliged to remind the Kwantung Army that, in dealing with the Changkufeng Incident, the central authorities pressed for a Russian pullback through diplomacy. Consequently, the Korea Army had been instructed to be ready to concentrate troops near Changkufeng as a "background." Meanwhile, it remained the Imperial will that utmost prudence be exercised. The Kwantung Army commander accordingly issued cautious instructions to subordinate units, especially those on the eastern border. The high command's injunctions did not end the discontent and recrimination at the lower levels of Kwantung Army Headquarters, nor did they quiet the concern felt in Tokyo. A former war minister told Baron Harada repeatedly in late July that the Kwantung Army was "no good," while the superintendent of police added that the Kwantung Army was embarrassing Foreign Minister Ugaki. Nevertheless, the Kwantung Army did exert self-restraint. For its part, the Korea Army naïvely sought to achieve entente with an antagonist who considered the case nonnegotiable. First, the government of Manchukuo was asked to lodge a formal protest with the USSR. The commissioner for foreign affairs at Harbin phoned V. V. Kuznetzov, the acting consul, on the night of 14 July and saw him on the 18th. Basing its contentions on maps, the Haensing regime demanded Soviet withdrawal from Changkufeng. The Japanese government was lodging similar protests within the framework of Japanese-Manchukuoan joint defense agreements. On the spot, the situation inflamed. During the afternoon of 15 July, a Japanese military police patrol from Korea reconnoitered at the foot of Hill 52, southeast of Changkufeng. The party came under Soviet gunfire and was driven back, abandoning the body of Corp. Matsushima Shakuni. Japanese sources claimed that a Russian ambush had been set inside Manchuria. The Russian side insisted that it was the Soviet frontier that had been violated by thirty meters. Kuzma Grebennik, the colonel commanding the 59th BGU, which covered the Posyet sector, asserted that Matsushima's effects included a notebook containing reconnaissance results and a camera with film of Soviet-claimed terrain, particularly Changkufeng Hill. According to Maj. Gilfan Batarshin, a subordinate of Grebennik, two Russian border guards from Podgornaya opened fire when the Japanese fled after being challenged. Japanese protests to the USSR about the death of Matsushima and the taking of his body were added to the negotiations concerning the disputed border and the alleged trespassing. Charge Nishi Haruhiko lodged a vigorous complaint in Moscow on 15 July but was answered by a counterprotest. Ambassador Shigemitsu underwent an identical experience during a conversation with Foreign Commissar Maxim Litvinov on 20 July. Shigemitsu retorted that the murder tended to exacerbate the negotiations. In his memoirs, he stated that the killing of Matsushima provoked the local Japanese border garrison unit. The shooting occurred as the Soviet military buildup continued, according to Japanese sources. Mechanized units were reported moving in the direction of Kyonghun from Barabash and Posyet Bay. Biplanes were reconnoitering the Hunchun Valley, within Manchurian territory, from the afternoon of 16 July. To the local Japanese authorities, it seemed that the Russians were adopting a challenging attitude. Although the Japanese-Manchukuoan side remained willing to negotiate—that is, to take no forceful actions if the Russians would withdraw, the latter appeared not to share such an intention. The Soviets were not only misinterpreting the Hunchun treaty to their advantage but were encroaching beyond what they claimed to be the line; they "lacked sincerity." Decisive use of force might have been imperative to secure the Manchurian border, which was Japan's legal responsibility. As far north as Tungning on the eastern Manchurian frontier, two Soviet ground divisions and considerable numbers of tanks and aircraft were reported massed in full view. At Changkufeng, Russian soldiers fortified the crest. Mountain guns were now seen with muzzles pointed toward Manchuria, and Japanese intelligence estimated that Soviet troop strength near Changkufeng had grown to 120 or 130 by the evening of 18 July. As Sawamoto Rikichiro, an Imperial aide, noted in his diary, "It would seem that settlement of the affair had become increasingly difficult." Korea Army staff officer Tsuchiya sent two emissaries bearing the notice to the Soviet border. The pair, "blazing with patriotic ardor,"set out on 18 July, carrying a message in one hand and a white flag in the other. From Kyonghun came the report the next day that there had been an urgent, well-attended Soviet staff meeting at BGU Headquarters in Novokievsk all night, and that the Russian side had been discomfited by the Japanese request, which had been transmitted to higher authorities. Still, the emissaries did not return, while a stream of reports indicated a Soviet buildup along a dozen frontier sectors. Russian authorities had reportedly forced the natives to evacuate an area twenty miles behind their borders. From Japanese observation posts, Soviet convoys of men, guns, and horses could be sighted moving toward Novokievsk after being unloaded from transports originating at Vladivostok. Japanese Army Intelligence reported that on 18 July a regimental-size force had arrived at Novokievsk; artillery displacements forward were particularly visible by night east of Khasan. A confidential Gaimusho message indicated that Soviet truck movements between Posyet, Novokievsk, and the front had increased since the 20th. Russian intrusions, kidnappings, and sniping incidents were reported along the Manchurian borders, from Manchouli on the west to Suifenho on the east, between 18 and 25 July. Aircraft on daytime reconnaissance were detected as far as three miles inside Manchurian territory in the Hunchun area. Although the Japanese asserted that their forbearance was being tested, Izvestiya charged "Japanese militarists" with manufacturing an affair at Ussuri as well as at Changkufeng. The Japanese themselves received reports from the Changkufeng front that by 20 July the Soviets had 250 soldiers, armed with field pieces, trench mortars, howitzers, and light and heavy machine guns, on the southern slopes. The Russians were putting up tents capable of holding 40 men each; officers could be observed for the first time. On the evening of the 20th, the Soviets lobbed illuminating shells toward Manchurian territory. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. Inada Masazum, studying maps and mud, saw Changkufeng Hill as a prize with peril, a test of nerve rather than a conquest. Tokyo's orders pulsed through Seoul and Harbin: guard, probe, and deter, but avoid full-scale war. Across the border, Soviet units pressed closer, lights and tents flickering on the hillside. The sea within sight whispered of strategy, diplomacy, and a warning: a single misstep could redraw Asia. And so the standoff waited, patient as winter.

Something on your mind? Erica & Jules would love to hear from you! In this episode, Erica interviews Debbie and Candice of Two Alpha Gals. These "gals" are about the sweetest nicest smartest kindest women around. And they both happen to have Alpha-Gal Syndrome. This means they both can't have mammalian meat - like beef or pork - or animal by-products like dairy or gelatin. Heck, they can't even have red algae (not because it's a meat, but you'll have to listen to the episode to find out why). We met the two gals at the FAACT Summit and we got to know them a little better and asked them about their new foundation, and what it's really like to live with AGS! "We're using our journey with alpha-gal syndrome to seek new and exciting ways to live with our diagnosis without sacrificing JOY. " - Two Alpha GalsRESOURCESTwo Alpha GalsAlpha Gal FoundationCDC - Alpha Gal Contact/Follow Jules & Erica Find us on IG @CeliacandTheBeast & @gfJules Follow us on FB @gfJules & @CeliacandTheBeast Threads @CeliacandTheBeast & @gfJules Email us at support@gfJules.com Find more articles, recipes & info at gfJules.com & celiacandthebeast.com Thanks for listening! Be sure to subscribe!**some links may be affiliate links; purchasing through these links will not cost you more, but will help to fund the podcast you ❤️

Last December, the OpenAI business put forward a plan to completely sideline its nonprofit board. But two state attorneys general have now blocked that effort and kept that board very much alive and kicking.The for-profit's trouble was that the entire operation was founded on the premise of — and legally pledged to — the purpose of ensuring that “artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.” So to get its restructure past regulators, the business entity has had to agree to 20 serious requirements designed to ensure it continues to serve that goal.Attorney Tyler Whitmer, as part of his work with Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology, has been a vocal critic of OpenAI's original restructure plan. In today's conversation, he lays out all the changes and whether they will ultimately matter.Full transcript, video, and links to learn more: https://80k.info/tw2 After months of public pressure and scrutiny from the attorneys general (AGs) of California and Delaware, the December proposal itself was sidelined — and what replaced it is far more complex and goes a fair way towards protecting the original mission:The nonprofit's charitable purpose — “ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity” — now legally controls all safety and security decisions at the company. The four people appointed to the new Safety and Security Committee can block model releases worth tens of billions.The AGs retain ongoing oversight, meeting quarterly with staff and requiring advance notice of any changes that might undermine their authority.OpenAI's original charter, including the remarkable “stop and assist” commitment, remains binding.But significant concessions were made. The nonprofit lost exclusive control of AGI once developed — Microsoft can commercialise it through 2032. And transforming from complete control to this hybrid model represents, as Tyler puts it, “a bad deal compared to what OpenAI should have been.”The real question now: will the Safety and Security Committee use its powers? It currently has four part-time volunteer members and no permanent staff, yet they're expected to oversee a company racing to build AGI while managing commercial pressures in the hundreds of billions.Tyler calls on OpenAI to prove they're serious about following the agreement:Hire management for the SSC.Add more independent directors with AI safety expertise.Maximise transparency about mission compliance."There's a real opportunity for this to go well. A lot … depends on the boards, so I really hope that they … step into this role … and do a great job. … I will hope for the best and prepare for the worst, and stay vigilant throughout."Chapters:We're hiring (00:00:00)Cold open (00:00:40)Tyler Whitmer is back to explain the latest OpenAI developments (00:01:46)The original radical plan (00:02:39)What the AGs forced on the for-profit (00:05:47)Scrappy resistance probably worked (00:37:24)The Safety and Security Committee has teeth — will it use them? (00:41:48)Overall, is this a good deal or a bad deal? (00:52:06)The nonprofit and PBC boards are almost the same. Is that good or bad or what? (01:13:29)Board members' “independence” (01:19:40)Could the deal still be challenged? (01:25:32)Will the deal satisfy OpenAI investors? (01:31:41)The SSC and philanthropy need serious staff (01:33:13)Outside advocacy on this issue, and the impact of LASST (01:38:09)What to track to tell if it's working out (01:44:28)This episode was recorded on November 4, 2025.Video editing: Milo McGuire, Dominic Armstrong, and Simon MonsourAudio engineering: Milo McGuire, Simon Monsour, and Dominic ArmstrongMusic: CORBITCoordination, transcriptions, and web: Katy Moore

I ran across a thought-provoking post from Chrissy LeMaire asking if we should reconsider SQL Server HA. The post actually asks if you've considered not using it. The default from Chrissy, for most installations, is to use standalone SQL Servers. This isn't to say she's against HA solutions (FCIs or AGs), but that they often cause problems and might not be needed. It's an interesting position to consider. For a long time, I avoided SQL Server clusters as they were hard to setup with a lot of complexity, hardware requirements, etc., and didn't really provide enough benefits over using log shipping with a second server for me.  These days I have clients with mostly AGs, and they seem to run fine. That being said, Chrissy notes that after she left a job, a network outages caused a bunch of downtime. I could see there being downtime, as the old database mirroring (and the it-will-never-die replication) needed a working network. If you have network issues, you better know how to manage your HA technology's issues. Read the rest of Do You Really Need HA?

We really enjoyed hearing all of your questions for our annual Ask Us Anything episode. There was one question that kept coming up: what might a different world look like? The broken incentives behind social media, and now AI, have done so much damage to our society, but what is the alternative? How can we blaze a different path?In this episode, Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin set out to answer those questions by imagining what a world with humane technology might look like—one where we recognized the harms of social media early and embarked on a whole of society effort to fix them.This alternative history serves to show that there are narrow pathways to a better future, if we have the imagination and the courage to make them a reality.Your Undivided Attention is produced by the Center for Humane Technology. Follow us on X: @HumaneTech_. You can find a full transcript, key takeaways, and much more on our Substack.RECOMMENDED MEDIADopamine Nation by Anna LembkeThe Anxious Generation by Jon HaidtMore information on Donella MeadowsFurther reading on the Kids Online Safety ActFurther reading on the lawsuit filed by state AGs against MetaRECOMMENDED YUA EPISODESFuture-proofing Democracy In the Age of AI with Audrey TangJonathan Haidt On How to Solve the Teen Mental Health CrisisAI Is Moving Fast. We Need Laws that Will Too. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr hosts #SistersInLaw to analyze the power of the president to impose tariffs, its upcoming review by the SCOTUS after challenges by small businesses and numerous states, and the argument for leaving that power in the domain of Congress.  Then, the #Sisters explain the effects of the government shutdown on SNAP benefits, discuss the suit by 25 states over their suspension, and the role AGs play in pushing back against the Federal Government.  They also look at the growing legal war on same-sex marriages ignited by Texas, and whether those rights are at risk going forward. Get the brand new ReSIStance T-Shirt & Mini Tote at politicon.com/merch Additional #SistersInLaw Shows & Content Are Here! Check out Jill's Politicon YouTube Show: Just The Facts Check out Kim's Newsletter: The Gavel  Books & Upcoming Tour Events From The #Sisters Joyce's new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable, is now available for pre-order!  Not only that, for a limited time, you have the exclusive opportunity to order a signed copy here!  Also, don't miss her upcoming book tour!  You can buy tickets on her Substack. Pre-order Barb's new book, The Fix!  So, don't wait!  You can also get Barb's first book, Attack From Within, here, now in paperback!  Make sure you don't miss her ongoing tour!  You can buy tickets at barbaramcquade.com for all upcoming shows. Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on Bluesky Get your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merch WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon.  Support This Week's Sponsors Factor:  Eat smart at FactorMeals.com/sil50off and use code sil50off to get 50% off your first box, plus Free Breakfast for 1 Year! Lola Blankets: Get 35% off your entire order at Lolablankets.com by using code SISTERS at checkout. Gusto: Gusto is your all-in-one online payroll and benefits software built for small businesses.  It's remote-friendly and incredibly easy to use.  Try Gusto today at gusto.com/SISTERS and get three months free when you run your first payroll! Thrive Causemetics: Effortlessly complete your perfect autumn look. Go to thrivecausemetics.com/sisters for an exclusive offer of 20% off your first order. Get More From The #SistersInLaw Joyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | Civil Discourse Substack | MSNBC | Author of “Giving Up Is Unforgiveable” Jill Wine-Banks: Bluesky | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President | Just The Facts YouTube Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | The Gavel Newsletter | Justice By Design Podcast Barb McQuade: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC | Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America

Talking spanking with Hugh Jas.

Last month, the "Billing Boys"—Chris Jones and Phil Rodgers—joined the GeriPal podcast to demystify medical billing and coding in palliative care. This month, we're back with part two, shifting the focus to geriatrics. While billing and coding may not be the most exciting topic, they're essential for ensuring fair reimbursement for the complex care we provide and for supporting the work of our interprofessional teams, many of whom can't bill directly for their services. When we underbill or leave money on the table, we not only shortchange ourselves but also devalue the critical role of geriatrics in the healthcare system. This time, we're joined by experts Peter Hollmann, Ken Koncilja, and Audrey Chun to dive into key questions: Why does billing matter, and who does it benefit? What's the difference between CPT, E&M, and ICD-10 codes (if you need a refresher, check out our chat with the Billing Boys here)? We explore how to think about billing for complexity versus time, and unpack new and impactful codes like the Cognitive Assessment and Care Plan Services code (99483), advance care planning (ACP) billing codes, and G2211, which acknowledges the added work of managing patients with chronic conditions. We also highlight the new APCM G-codes for 2025, a set of HCPCS codes that could provide substantial financial support for interdisciplinary teams in geriatrics. Finally, we discuss the advocacy behind these codes. The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) plays a vital role on the AMA's RUC committee, helping to improve reimbursement for the complex care of older adults. Tune in to this week's GeriPal podcast for expert advice, practical strategies, and insights that will help you optimize your billing practices and sustain the future of geriatrics! Here are some of the resources we also talked about: The physician fee schedule look up tool Wwere you can find out CMS expected charge based off where you practice AGS's annual coding update Geriatrics at Your Fingertips, which has a one-pager on billing Medicare Claims Processing Manual

Nineteen Democratic attorneys general, led by California AG Rob Bonta, are urging the CFPB not to reduce its supervision of key consumer finance sectors, including auto lending, debt collection, and money transfers. The AGs warn that raising the thresholds for “larger participant” oversight would leave millions of consumers unprotected and weaken the CFPB's enforcement reach. The letter signals states' continued commitment to fill potential gaps in federal oversight through coordinated enforcement. Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Paul L. Singer, Beth Bolen Chun, Abigail Stempson, and Darby B. Hobbs

States have become more and more active in using their consumer protection statutes to initiate investigations and lawsuits against Chinese companies. These investigations and efforts have centered on concerns about so-called white labeling of consumer products to hide the country of origin and concerns about data privacy and security. This webinar will feature the Attorneys General of Nebraska and Alaska—two AGs who have taken a leading interest in this emerging area. They will discuss the growing role of state consumer protection laws in addressing foreign-backed corporate misconduct and what the future may hold for this important area of enforcement. Featuring: Hon. Mike Hilgers, Attorney General, Nebraska Hon. Stephen Cox, Attorney General, Alaska (Moderator) O.H. Skinner, III, Executive Director, Alliance For Consumers

Sixteen Republican state attorneys general, led by Montana AG Austin Knudsen, have launched an investigation into four major tech companies over allegedly deceptive renewable energy claims. The AGs argue that using unbundled renewable energy certificates (RECs) to claim 100% renewable power may mislead consumers and distort the energy market. This episode breaks down how the probe reflects ongoing scrutiny of Big Tech, state-level divergence from the FTC's Green Guides, and broader political debates around fossil fuels, emissions, and the electric grid. Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Paul L. Singer, Beth Bolen Chun, Abigail Stempson, and Andrea deLorimier

Just before leaving office, former Missouri AG Andrew Bailey withdrew a proposed rule that would have barred social media companies from requiring users to rely solely on in-house content moderation. The rule drew strong opposition from industry and policy groups who warned of data security risks, First Amendment violations, and technical impracticalities. While the withdrawal pauses the effort for now, it leaves open the possibility that future AGs—or other states—could revisit similar proposals. Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Paul L. Singer, Abigail Stempson, Beth Bolen Chun, and Zach Cihlar

We need to build a red-state insurance policy. I explain how we are losing America in terms of economy, security from Islam, and foreign policy, even under GOP control. Despite Hamas' repeated violations of the ceasefire, we continue to expend more time and treasure promoting the welfare of Gaza and restraining Israel. Also, Con Inc. is becoming a "white-pill mechanism" to tamp down the angst of the Republican voters so that they avoid seeking solutions outside the party or in primaries. Next, we're joined by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who discusses why he is running for Texas attorney general. We go through the security threats to Texas: street crime from Soros prosecutors, illegal immigrants, Sharia law, and communist terrorism. The state AG stands at the nexus of enforcement against all that is destroying the state. Chip feels that we need red-state AGs to push the envelope on behalf of the people when the land and people of red states are threatened rather than getting caught up in legal sophistry. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Did you know that a tick bite could lead to a food allergy?  Join Food Sleuth Radio host and Registered Dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn for her conversation with Sharon Forsyth, conservationist and patient advocate for the alpha-gal syndrome community. Forsyth created Alpha-gal Information.org, a comprehensive informational resource on AGS. She discusses how to avoid tick bites and the challenges of living with alpha-gal food allergy (also known as mammalian meat allergy).Related Websites: https://alphagalaction.org/

Jogar mal e ganhar.Jogar bem e perder.Milhares a discutirem a vida do clube mas só mil nas AGs.Champions League virou miragem.Campeonato só pode ser salvo com vitória no Dragão.Outubro, mês de todas as decisões.

In late August, the Attorney General Alliance hosted its Chair's Initiative in Girdwood, Alaska, marking the final event under former Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor's leadership. The conference brought together attorneys general, cybersecurity experts, and industry leaders to discuss evolving digital threats and strategies for public-private collaboration. Key themes included strengthening national defenses through cross-sector partnerships, harmonizing fragmented privacy laws, and leveraging AI responsibly—both to address risks like deepfakes and to build safer, more transparent systems. For companies navigating cybersecurity and consumer protection challenges, the Initiative underscored the central role state AGs will continue to play in shaping digital policy. Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Paul Singer, Abby Stempson, Beth Chun, and Andrea deLorimier.

I answer some listener questions and talk spanking with Rylie.

What a weekend of football. Ags get big win in South Bend. Georgia and Tenn go to OT. Cowboys get in shootout with....checks notes.....the Giants?? A couple of coaches already hitting unemployment. #OffOurGame #OOG #NFL #MLB #NBA #NHL #NCAA #PGA #NCAAFB #SEC #BIG12 #B1G #ACC #PAC12 #Football #Collegefootball #Gigem #Aggies #CFP #NASCAR #Hockey #Baseball #WNBA

Americans don't talk about state attorney generals very much. Technically it's “attorneys general”—like “sisters-in-law” instead of “sister-in-laws”—but don't get hung up on the wording. It's what AGs actually do that matters so much.A state attorney general is basically the top legal expert in their state; they're also known as The People's Lawyers because they fight for us, their constituents, against bad actors who don't have our best interests in mind. That can mean prosecuting companies that are polluting waterways or landlords who are illegally raising rent prices or banks that are selling people's private data. Sometimes state AGs band together on lawsuits, like a recent case against Purdue Pharma for aggressively pushing medications like OxyContin and contributing to the opioid crisis we're facing in this country.Unfortunately, we also have a lot of examples of the harm that a corrupt or extremist attorney general can do. (Ken Paxton, for example) But the good news is, we the people have the power to elect them. In all but seven states (AK, HI, NH, NJ, WY, TN, & ME), voters choose their AG at the ballot box. Most attorneys general are up for election in 2026 or 2028, and in one pivotal state, Virginia, voters will get to elect a new attorney general in just a couple of months.This November, Jay Jones—a lawyer and former member of the Virginia House of Delegates—will square off against the current Virginia Attorney General, Jason Miyares. Miyares is a Republican and a supporter of Donald Trump, campaigning for him and supporting his policies.If you live in Virginia, be sure you come to the polls in November prepared to vote for attorney general. And if you don't live in Virginia, chances are you'll have the chance to vote for your own AG very soon! It's not just about rejecting extremism. It's about choosing a “People's Lawyer” who actually works for the people.For a transcript of this episode, please email comms@redwine.blue. You can learn more about us at www.redwine.blue or follow us on social media! Twitter: @TheSWPpod and @RedWineBlueUSA Instagram: @RedWineBlueUSA Facebook: @RedWineBlueUSA YouTube: @RedWineBlueUSA

Americans don't talk about state attorney generals very much. Technically it's “attorneys general”—like “sisters-in-law” instead of “sister-in-laws”—but don't get hung up on the wording. It's what AGs actually do that matters so much.A state attorney general is basically the top legal expert in their state; they're also known as The People's Lawyers because they fight for us, their constituents, against bad actors who don't have our best interests in mind. That can mean prosecuting companies that are polluting waterways or landlords who are illegally raising rent prices or banks that are selling people's private data. Sometimes state AGs band together on lawsuits, like a recent case against Purdue Pharma for aggressively pushing medications like OxyContin and contributing to the opioid crisis we're facing in this country. The company settled for $7.4 billion dollars just this past January, which means billions of dollars that can now be put back into treatment and prevention programs. It's a great example of how an attorney general can have a real positive impact on the people of their state.Unfortunately, we also have a lot of examples of the harm that a corrupt or extremist attorney general can do. (Ken Paxton, for example) But the good news is, we the people have the power to elect them. In all but seven states (AK, HI, NH, NJ, WY, TN, & ME), voters choose their AG at the ballot box. Most attorneys general are up for election in 2026 or 2028, and in one pivotal state, Virginia, voters will get to elect a new attorney general in just a couple of months.This November, Jay Jones—a lawyer and former member of the Virginia House of Delegates—will square off against the current Virginia Attorney General, Jason Miyares. Miyares is a Republican and a supporter of Donald Trump, campaigning for him and supporting his policies.If you live in Virginia, be sure you come to the polls in November prepared to vote for attorney general. And if you don't live in Virginia, chances are you'll have the chance to vote for your own AG very soon! It's not just about rejecting extremism. It's about choosing a “People's Lawyer” who actually works for the people.

Many of you reading this likely have an Availability Group (AG) set up on at least one database in your organization. Maybe not most, but many of you as this has proven to be a technology that many people like for HA/DR, upgrades, and probably other uses. As the technology has evolved from it's SQL Server 2012 debut, it has improved in many ways. This might be one of the few features that has received regular attention from the developers in Redmond across multiple versions. That's not to imply this is a foolproof or bug-free feature. Numerous people have had issues with the various types of AGs. From setup to performance to scale, I've seen many people post questions and search for answers on how to get their system running smoothly and reduce any late-night calls. Read the rest of Pushing the Limits of AGs

Gwendolyn Cooley, recent Chair of Attorneys General Antitrust Task Force, discusses state and D.C. AG antitrust enforcement. Using case-specific examples, she explains how state-level AGs often coordinate with federal antitrust authorities, and also independently bring cases of local interest. She also talks about instances where state-level enforcers take enforcement positions that differ from federal authorities. Finally, she comments on the prospects for future state and federal cooperation. The podcast moderator was Don Allen Resnikoff of the Antitrust and Consumer Law Community.Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations.

State attorneys general are turning up the heat on Big Tech. Last week, 27 AGs filed an amicus brief urging the Eleventh Circuit to uphold Florida's law restricting social media access for children, framing the measure as content-neutral and necessary to protect youth mental health. Days later, 44 AGs sent a joint NAAG letter to leading AI companies warning them to safeguard children from exploitation and inappropriate content, making clear they will use every enforcement tool available. For legal, compliance, and marketing teams, these actions underscore the growing regulatory focus on online platforms, addictive features, and AI-driven risks. Companies in the tech, digital media, and AI sectors should expect heightened scrutiny and prepare for aggressive, coordinated enforcement. Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Paul L. Singer, Abigail Stempson, Beth Bolen Chun and Andrea deLorimier.

At age 16, Peyton Owen decided to take her alpha-gal diagnosis and use it as a force for good. Our very own TAG Teen Contributor is sharing some exciting updates full of new projects for the alpha-gal community! Last year Peyton jumped into the advocacy space by getting involved with the FARE Teen Advisory Group, which led to an amazing collaboration with K-12 Allergies and the launching of the AGS Gift Bags Project. Peyton shares what inspired her to get involved in advocacy work, her experience as a CFAAR Ambassador, researching colleges, travel tips, and so much more! You won't want to miss this one, so tune in now!Visit Peyton's Corner to read more about her journey with AGS and her exciting advocacy updates.To learn more about FARE"s Teen Advisory Group and ways you can get involved visit: https://www.foodallergy.org/resources/teen-advisory-group

Blue state governors and AGs strategize to wrest back power and ultimately defeat the Regime. Epstein survivors take the lead in their fight for justice.  www.charlesbursell.com

Questions Louis answered in this episode:Why Louis started App Growth SummitThe moment AGS's ‘community first' format revealed the gap in existing event cultureWhat are mobile marketers missing in custom product page strategy?Where does AI actually help and where does it actively dull critical thinking?Why do marketers keep separating teams and failing to optimize collaboration?How can retargeting go beyond surface-level re-engagement to real value?What separates high-ROI event vendors from the time-wasters?How does AGS build authentic community, and what's the actual ROI of belonging?What advice does Louis give first-time sponsors and networkers who want more than a sales lead?Why do so many marketers waste the opportunity of an event, and how is AGS structured to avoid this?Where is the industry headed, and what does Louis see as the next phase?Timestamp:(0:00) – Intro, Louis's journey from music to mobile marketing(2:45) – First AGS event: origin story, first sponsors, finding the ‘sweet spot'(4:23) – The ‘community not scale' thesis: AGS's unique approach(7:20) – Venue selection, why environment shapes event outcomes(9:33) – Industry blindspots: custom product pages, marketing-product silos(11:00) – Getting CPPs right: landing page principles, offer-matching, creative basics(14:00) – AI's role: when it elevates, when it destroys value(23:00) – Maximizing events: actionable networking, why ‘closing deals' is a dead-end(30:35) – AGS global: favorite cities, the meaning of event #100(36:10) – Rapid fire: first thing at an event, dream speakers, live shows, Austin food, travel recs(39:40) – Closing: next AGS events, community calls to actionQuotes:(11:33) – “ If you match your creative and the offer to the campaign, you're going to get way more conversions.”(14:15) – “AI is more ‘A' than ‘I' right now…It's a supercharged research tool, but it's not going to replace real creative strategy anytime soon.”(24:12) – “If you want ROI from an event, don't cluster with your coworkers. Talk to people you don't know, open doors, and don't expect a deal by Friday.”Mentioned in this episode:App Growth Summit (appgrowthsummit.com)App Growth Snacks newsletterLouis on Linkedin

We recently wrote about the August 15th D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the lawsuit brought by the labor unions representing CFPB employees against Acting Director Russell Vought. The unions sought injunctive relief in response to what they described as an attempted “shutdown” of the Bureau. In a 2–1 ruling, the Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction issued by the District Court. That injunction had temporarily blocked the CFPB from carrying out a reduction-in-force (“RIF”) that would have left the Bureau with only about 200 employees to carry out its statutory responsibilities. Today, our Consumer Finance Monitor podcast takes a deep dive into this critical decision and its implications. Alan Kaplinsky (founder and former practice group leader, now Senior Counsel in our Consumer Financial Services Group) joins Joseph Schuster (a partner in the Group) for a wide-ranging conversation covering: The majority opinion by Judge Katsos The dissenting opinion by Judge Pillard The plaintiffs' options for further review — and why the odds may be at least 50–50 that the full D.C. Circuit (with 11 judges, 7 appointed by Democratic presidents) will grant en banc review Why plaintiffs might choose to continue litigating in the District Court as the CFPB implements the RIF and scales back activities to only those that are statutorily mandated How the CFPB's sharply reduced budget (cut nearly in half by the “Big Beautiful Bill”) shapes the Bureau's future functions What the CFPB could look like once litigation ends and “the dust settles” The impact of the just-released semiannual regulatory agenda The current status of the complaint portal What's happening with the CFPB's supervision and enforcement efforts How the DOJ and FTC are approaching consumer financial services issues Whether state attorneys general are stepping up enforcement to fill the gap left by a diminished CFPB This is a must-listen episode for anyone following the future of the CFPB, the role of other federal agencies, and the actions of state AGs in regulating consumer financial services.

In this episode of "This Week in Futures Options" (TWIFO), host Mark Longo and guest Kevin Green from Schwab Network break down the week's trading action in the futures options market. They cover the top movers, analyze volatility across different sectors, and dive deep into agricultural products. The main discussion focuses on the soybean complex, including soybeans, soybean oil, and soybean meal, as well as the live and feeder cattle markets. The hosts examine recent market-moving events and options trading activity, highlighting notable trends and specific trades. The episode concludes with a look at the energy sector and a final wrap-up. Time Stamps 0:00 Welcome  3:55 Movers and Shakers Report 6:35 Volatility Breakdown 11:45 The World of Ags 20:30 Cattle Analysis 28:09 Energy Discussion 35:25 Wrap-up 

In this episode of "This Week in Futures Options" (TWIFO), host Mark Longo and guest Kevin Green from Schwab Network break down the week's trading action in the futures options market. They cover the top movers, analyze volatility across different sectors, and dive deep into agricultural products. The main discussion focuses on the soybean complex, including soybeans, soybean oil, and soybean meal, as well as the live and feeder cattle markets. The hosts examine recent market-moving events and options trading activity, highlighting notable trends and specific trades. The episode concludes with a look at the energy sector and a final wrap-up. Time Stamps 0:00 Welcome  3:55 Movers and Shakers Report 6:35 Volatility Breakdown 11:45 The World of Ags 20:30 Cattle Analysis 28:09 Energy Discussion 35:25 Wrap-up 

Alexis Padis, President of AGS, shares insights from her first year of leadership and discusses her vision for the organization's future after being re-elected for a second term. Alexis shares what leadership development looks like in an organization with a storied history, and the humility and foresight required to implement changes that might not come to fruition during her own presidency. Learn more about AGS: ags.orgLearn more about our sponsor, Jewel-Craft: jewel-craft.comSend us a text Send feedback or learn more about the podcast: punchmark.com/loupe Learn about Punchmark's website platform: punchmark.com Inquire about sponsoring In the Loupe and showcase your business on our next episode: podcast@punchmark.com

Mike Craven and Jay Arnold are back on the mics talking all things Aggies! We're gearing up for week one when the Ags take on the UTSA Roadrunners at Kyle Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Marc and Dan welcome former Missouri Senator John Lamping to break down Andrew Bailey's abrupt resignation as Attorney General and the political stakes of Governor Mike Kehoe's pending appointment. Lamping calls it “unconventional,” pointing out Bailey never seemed committed to the job, and argues this revolving door of AGs undermines Missouri voters. He lays out why Catherine Hanaway is the logical frontrunner—tied closely to both the Kehoe and Blunt camps, capable, and independent enough not to be a puppet. Lamping stresses the importance of an AG building long-term conservative legal infrastructure rather than treating the post as a political stepping stone. The conversation expands to the broader frustration: voters elect officials only to watch them resign early, letting governors play kingmaker. They wrap with speculation on redistricting, where Kehoe faces pressure to back a 7–1 congressional map to prove his conservative credibility before 2028.

AlabamaAG Marshall and 37 other AGs urge Instagram to enhance location privacySen. Britt says Trump making the nation's capital safe again is a priorityJudge does not issue injunction that would stop state ban on DEI conceptsMontgomery judge issues block on state law that regulates vape productsBirmingham mayor comes out in support of legalizing marijuana in the stateJudge does not dismiss lawsuit against UAB over autopsies on prison inmatesNationalTrump announces purge of names from Social Security benefitsFBI director talks about exposure of the Russia hoax, as Trump meets today with Vladimir Putin for peace talksDNI director releases more incriminating docs on James ClapperSandwich assault in DC of officer gets DOJ employee toasted by AG BondiMelania Trump threatens legal action against Hunter Biden for claiming she was close to Jeffrey EpsteinFL congresswoman talks on Joe Rogan about UAPs and government cover up

New York State Attorney General Letitia James is among dozens of state AGs urging Instagram to protect users' data after the platform released a map feature that allows users to share their real-time location. Meanwhile, the MTA is increasing train service for the start of the U.S Open Monday. Also, Mamdani canvassers return to the streets ahead of the general election. Plus, state lawmakers warn Governor Hochul about looming fiscal trouble. Finally GrowNYC's Amelia Tarpey shares how to make the most of peak eggplant season.

Ali Mehdaoui breaks down FIVE of the biggest stories shaping your feeds, your summer, and maybe even your sanity.1️⃣ Streaming's Profit Era – Netflix is printing cash, Disney+ finally turned a profit, and bundles are back. It's starting to look a lot like cable… but in a hoodie. Here's how the big players are making money — and how they're making you spend more.2️⃣ Instagram's Location Controversy – The new “Find My Friends” map lets you broadcast your exact location. Meta says it's for hangouts, but 37 state attorneys general say it's a stalker's dream. We break down the risks and the “ME Rule” for staying safe.3️⃣ Brain Rot Summer – No monoculture, just micro obsessions. From mushroom foraging TikTok to AI K-pop remixes, we're all living in different algorithm bubbles. Here's how to create your own “mini-culture” before the chaos swallows your attention span.4️⃣ Offline Summer – Touch grass, but make it fashion. Digital detox is the trend of the season, with film cameras, print magazines, and zero-phone hangouts making a comeback. Ali shares the “3-2-1 Rule” for going offline without losing your mind (or your friends).5️⃣ TikTok's Five-Hashtag Limit – Small creators are fuming after TikTok chopped posts down to just five hashtags. Is it killing discoverability… or forcing better content? We give you the five-part hashtag strategy that still works under the new rules.

On a prior podcast we talked with Todd Semla and Mike Steinman about the update to the AGS Beers Criteria of potentially inappropriate medications in older adults (Todd and Mike co-chair the AGS Beers Criteria Panel).  One of the questions that came up was - well if we should probably think twice or avoid that medication, what should we do instead? Today we talk with Todd and Mike about their new recommendations of alternative treatments to the AGS Beers Criteria, published recently in JAGS, and also presented at the 2025 AGS conference in Chicago (and available on demand online). We had a lot of fun at the start of the podcast talking about the appropriate analogy for how clinicians should use the AGS Beers Criteria.  In our last podcast, the analogy was a stop sign. You should come to a stop before you prescribe or refill a medication on the Beers list, look around at alternatives, and consider how to proceed.  You might in the end decide to proceed, as there are certainly situations in which it does make sense to start or continue a medication on the Beers list. Today's analogy had somewhat higher stakes, involving a driver, a pothole in the road, and a cyclist on the side who you'd hit if you swerved.  Really upping the anti!!! The podcast is framed around a case Eric crafted of a patient with most of the medications and conditions on the Beers list. We used this as a springboard to discuss the following issues (with links to prior GeriPal podcasts): Insomnia (Doxepin is an alternative, trazodone and melatonin are not?!?) Diabetes management  PPI for GERD Treatments for pain, including NSAIDS, COX2, and gabapentinoids Cannabis Deprescribing,org - terrific Canadian website (no tariff to use) And I hope that the prescribing landscape is indeed getting better (thanks to Kai on guitar)! -Alex Smith  

Today's Headlines: House Republicans are flipping the Epstein story, subpoenaing the Clintons, former AGs, and ex-FBI chiefs — but skipping the guy who gave Epstein his sweetheart plea deal, Alex Acosta. A NYT look inside Epstein's NYC mansion turned up creepy art, hidden cameras, and celeb pics with everyone from Bill Gates to Donald and Melania. The Trump team's also dusting off the “Russia hoax” playbook, launching a grand jury probe into Obama's handling of the 2016 election interference investigation. In other Epstein distraction news, Trump popped up on the White House roof and joked about nukes. He also made himself head of the 2028 LA Olympics task force (with a side of anti-trans comments). The State Department floated visa bonds up to $15K while the FBI says 2024 had the second-highest hate crime numbers ever. Lastly, Palantir got a $10B Army contract and Elon Musk's xAI scored $200M from the Pentagon. Resources/Articles mentioned in this episode: NBC News: House committee subpoenas the Clintons and several top former DOJ officials for testimony about Jeffrey Epstein NY Times: Inside Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan Townhouse: Birthday Letters, First Edition ‘Lolita' and More Axios: Trump "happy to hear" DOJ launched grand jury probe of Obama officials ABC News: Trump takes unusual stroll on White House roof CNN: Trump says he wants strong testing to keep transgender athletes out of women's sports at 2028 Olympics AP News: State Department may require visa applicants to post bond of up to $15,000 to enter the US Axios: Hate crimes hit second largest record in 2024: FBI Axios: Palantir's $10 billion Army contract continues its D.C. win streak Axios: Musk's xAI announces $200 million contract with Pentagon Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The House subpoenas Bill & Hillary Clinton, ex-AGs, and FBI directors in a revived Epstein probe. PBD and the crew break down who might flip, why Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder matter, and what this means for justice, immunity deals, and Ghislaine Maxwell's silence.

On August 5, 2025, the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Republican Congressman James Comer, issued subpoenas to Bill and Hillary Clinton in connection with the ongoing investigation into the federal government's handling of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. Bill Clinton is scheduled to be deposed on October 14, and Hillary Clinton on October 9, as part of a broader inquiry into how Epstein evaded meaningful accountability for decades. The committee also demanded that the Department of Justice produce all unredacted records related to Epstein by August 19, signaling a new phase of congressional scrutiny aimed at determining whether political or prosecutorial favoritism played a role in shielding powerful individuals. Though neither Clinton has been formally accused of criminal wrongdoing, their longstanding personal and professional proximity to Epstein—documented through flight logs, photographs, and shared social circles—has placed them at the center of growing public skepticism.The subpoenas did not stop with the Clintons. The committee has also called on a range of former senior officials to testify, including former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller, and former Attorneys General Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Jeff Sessions, William Barr, Merrick Garland, and Alberto Gonzales. The committee is specifically focused on uncovering why Epstein received such a lenient non-prosecution agreement in 2007, why federal oversight of his post-conviction status was so lax, and whether any interference occurred in subsequent investigations. Critics have noted the glaring omission of Donald Trump—himself photographed with Epstein and present at multiple known events—but the committee has remained silent on whether additional subpoenas are forthcoming. Regardless, the move marks the first time the Clintons have been formally compelled to speak under oath about Epstein, and it reflects growing bipartisan frustration with how long justice has been delayed in this case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill and Hillary Clinton, former AGs and FBI directors subpoenaed for Jeffrey Epstein testimony

In this fiery edition of The Daily Herold, Jon dives into a packed news cycle, spotlighting the DOJ's opening of a grand jury investigation into Russiagate, following a criminal referral from Tulsi Gabbard, and explores the role Pam Bondi may play in expediting indictments. He questions how, or whether, the Mar-a-Lago raid ties into the broader conspiracy and highlights the need for public proof that connects the dots. Jon also breaks down the subpoenas issued to former AGs and DOJ officials in the Epstein investigation, ponders who's missing from the list, and discusses the possible re-litigation of mid-year exam crimes. Other stories include Smartmatic's co-founder's alleged bribery scheme in Venezuela, Brazil's Supreme Court placing Bolsonaro under house arrest, Netanyahu's cabinet attempting to oust his AG, and DHS quietly requiring FEMA applicants not to boycott Israel. Jon closes the episode with a clip of CNN's Jim Acosta interviewing an AI-generated voice of a Parkland victim and challenges the ethical boundaries of such stunts. From mainstream media spin to Maxwell transcripts, this episode's theme is clear: truth is only beginning to surface, and some people are getting nervous.

On August 5, 2025, the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Republican Congressman James Comer, issued subpoenas to Bill and Hillary Clinton in connection with the ongoing investigation into the federal government's handling of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. Bill Clinton is scheduled to be deposed on October 14, and Hillary Clinton on October 9, as part of a broader inquiry into how Epstein evaded meaningful accountability for decades. The committee also demanded that the Department of Justice produce all unredacted records related to Epstein by August 19, signaling a new phase of congressional scrutiny aimed at determining whether political or prosecutorial favoritism played a role in shielding powerful individuals. Though neither Clinton has been formally accused of criminal wrongdoing, their longstanding personal and professional proximity to Epstein—documented through flight logs, photographs, and shared social circles—has placed them at the center of growing public skepticism.The subpoenas did not stop with the Clintons. The committee has also called on a range of former senior officials to testify, including former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller, and former Attorneys General Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Jeff Sessions, William Barr, Merrick Garland, and Alberto Gonzales. The committee is specifically focused on uncovering why Epstein received such a lenient non-prosecution agreement in 2007, why federal oversight of his post-conviction status was so lax, and whether any interference occurred in subsequent investigations. Critics have noted the glaring omission of Donald Trump—himself photographed with Epstein and present at multiple known events—but the committee has remained silent on whether additional subpoenas are forthcoming. Regardless, the move marks the first time the Clintons have been formally compelled to speak under oath about Epstein, and it reflects growing bipartisan frustration with how long justice has been delayed in this case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill and Hillary Clinton, former AGs and FBI directors subpoenaed for Jeffrey Epstein testimonyBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On August 5, 2025, the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Republican Congressman James Comer, issued subpoenas to Bill and Hillary Clinton in connection with the ongoing investigation into the federal government's handling of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. Bill Clinton is scheduled to be deposed on October 14, and Hillary Clinton on October 9, as part of a broader inquiry into how Epstein evaded meaningful accountability for decades. The committee also demanded that the Department of Justice produce all unredacted records related to Epstein by August 19, signaling a new phase of congressional scrutiny aimed at determining whether political or prosecutorial favoritism played a role in shielding powerful individuals. Though neither Clinton has been formally accused of criminal wrongdoing, their longstanding personal and professional proximity to Epstein—documented through flight logs, photographs, and shared social circles—has placed them at the center of growing public skepticism.The subpoenas did not stop with the Clintons. The committee has also called on a range of former senior officials to testify, including former FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller, and former Attorneys General Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Jeff Sessions, William Barr, Merrick Garland, and Alberto Gonzales. The committee is specifically focused on uncovering why Epstein received such a lenient non-prosecution agreement in 2007, why federal oversight of his post-conviction status was so lax, and whether any interference occurred in subsequent investigations. Critics have noted the glaring omission of Donald Trump—himself photographed with Epstein and present at multiple known events—but the committee has remained silent on whether additional subpoenas are forthcoming. Regardless, the move marks the first time the Clintons have been formally compelled to speak under oath about Epstein, and it reflects growing bipartisan frustration with how long justice has been delayed in this case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Bill and Hillary Clinton, former AGs and FBI directors subpoenaed for Jeffrey Epstein testimonyBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The final day of the Attorney General Alliance Annual Meeting covered some of the most urgent and complex issues facing law enforcement and AGs today: • Proactive public-private collaboration • Technology-facilitated harms (and how AGs are responding) • Earned wage access and the evolving regulatory landscape Your host Simone Roach brings us the break down from Paul Singer, Abigail Stempson, Beth Chun, and Andrea deLorimier. https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/2025-aga-annual-meeting-wrap-up-day-3

Despite uncertainty for US clean energy investors, things are looking good for the geothermal sector. US$1.7 billion in public funding was pumped into geothermal projects in Q1 this year - 85% of 2024's entire annual allocation – as breakthrough technologies promise to transform untapped resources into commercially viable clean energy projects.Enhanced geothermal and advanced geothermal technologies are making geothermal energy accessible anywhere, not just at existing sites chosen for their high-temperatures.To explore the science behind EGS and AGS, host Sylvia Leyva Martinez is joined by John Plack, VP of engineering at Ameresco. John explains how techniques adapted from the oil and gas sector, like directional drilling and reservoir stimulation, are improving geothermal's commercial viability. John shares what's changed since the IRA's passage, the role of EGS, and why improved subsurface mapping is critical to unlocking investment.Geothermal is currently supplying less than 1% of global energy needs, but could provide 15% of worldwide power by 2050. The US leads global geothermal power production, yet its 4 GW of installed capacity leaves vast resources untapped. Total potential US geothermal capacity exceeds 500 GW, with the best sites in western states featuring temperatures above 150°C and heat flow rates exceeding 80 milliwatts per square metre.Investment is there, and the technology is there, so has the impact of the Trump administration's energy policy been lighter for geothermal than other sectors like wind and solar? Why?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Trump's executive order stripping citizenship from children of immigrants has been enjoined again. Will the Supreme Court burn down another plank of civil procedure just to avoid ruling on it? And DOJ whistleblower Erez Reuveni is dropping receipts! He's got all the texts and emails that prove Trump's henchman Emil Bove ordered the DOJ to defy court orders. That's going to make it a lot harder for his former colleagues to lie to judges in immigration cases, and those judges are already PISSED. Plus Republican state AGs in Florida and Missouri are wilding out. And for subscribers, let's talk about Trump's threats to tariff Brazil for prosecuting former president Jair Bolsonaro.   Links:   Barbara v. Trump [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70651853/barbara-v-trump/   MO AG Andy Bailey threatens AI for MEAN TO TRUMP https://ago.mo.gov/attorney-general-bailey-fights-to-expose-big-tech-censorship-of-president-trump-as-ai-chatbots-produce-fake-news/   Erez Reuveni Whistleblower Disclosures https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/durbin-releases-documents-corroborating-justice-department-whistleblowers-allegations-against-embattled-trump-judicial-pick-emil-bove   J.O.P. v. Department of Homeland Security [District Court Docket] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15867241/jop-v-us-department-of-homeland-security   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

Paul L. Singer, Abigail Stempson, Beth Bolen Chun, Andrea deLorimier The Attorney General Alliance (AGA) hosted its 2025 Annual Meeting last week, bringing together state attorneys general and their staff, legal practitioners, and industry participants to discuss various topics important to AGs. In the first post of this three-part series, we explore the first day of panels, which included discourse on counterfeit prescriptions and fentanyl, innovative tools to disrupt human trafficking, unregulated synthetically derived substances, and gift card fraud. The Annual Meeting is the premier event hosted by the AGA each year, with almost 600 participants engaging in dialogue around the most critical legal issues facing the states and identifying opportunities for public/private partnerships to address those issues.

Talking spanking with the great, Amelia Jane Rutherford, AKA Ariel Anderssen

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – A lawsuit brought by 20 AGs from Democrat states has found a judge to block the Department of Education's planned layoffs of half the DOE staff. In the decision to halt the terminations, Judge Myong stated that DOE employees and teachers' unions offered enough supporting documentation to cause the...