Podcasts about policymaking

The episode details a structural shift in the technology landscape: AI models are increasingly being treated as commodity components, with operational control and procurement decisions moving to the orchestration layer. This change is illustrated by government procurement actions, specifically the Pentagon's designation of Anthropic's Claude model as a supply chain risk and the subsequent shift in model eligibility requirements. Policymaking authorities are now directly dictating which models can be used within national security supply chains, reconfiguring where power, liability, and decision-making sit. The primary development is the Department of Defense's recent disqualification of Anthropic's Claude from eligible contracts, leading to both contract cancellations and legal disputes. Anthropic has responded with lawsuits contesting its supply chain risk designation, while Microsoft has sought court intervention to block the Pentagon's ban, asserting this would prevent disruption to military AI workflows. The State Department has also moved its internal chatbot infrastructure from Claude Sonic 4.5 to OpenAI's GPT-4.1, aligning with the President's compliance directive. Supporting developments include Google's deployment of Gemini-powered AI agents within the Department of Defense, and the emergence of tools such as Perplexity's APIs, which aim to simplify workflow construction across multiple models. The episode emphasizes that model swaps by agencies are not merely technical updates, but policy-driven control decisions. These actions underscore a climate in which model eligibility and operational portability are shaped by compliance and procurement authorities rather than technical teams or vendors. Operational implications for MSPs and IT providers are profound. Single-model dependencies now present measurable contract risk, especially for clients in defense, healthcare, or finance sectors. Swapping models requires revalidation of prompts, outputs, and integrations, rather than simple API repointing. Providers are advised to audit workflows for reliance on any one model, prioritize abstraction layers that enable smooth transitions, and position model-agnostic architectures as proactive risk management. In a landscape defined by commodity models and policy-driven eligibility, model diversification now represents continuity planning rather than an engineering preference. Three things to know today: 00:00 Pentagon vs. Anthropic 02:19 Beyond the Model 05:07 Why Do We Care?  Supported by:  ScalePad, Small Biz Thoughts Community

Last time we spoke about the end of the battle of khalkin gol. In the summer of 1939, the Nomonhan Incident escalated into a major border conflict between Soviet-Mongolian forces and Japan's Kwantung Army along the Halha River. Despite Japanese successes in July, Zhukov launched a decisive offensive on August 20. Under cover of darkness, Soviet troops crossed the river, unleashing over 200 bombers and intense artillery barrages that devastated Japanese positions. Zhukov's northern, central, and southern forces encircled General Komatsubara's 23rd Division, supported by Manchukuoan units. Fierce fighting ensued: the southern flank collapsed under Colonel Potapov's armor, while the northern Fui Heights held briefly before falling to relentless assaults, including flame-throwing tanks. Failed Japanese counterattacks on August 24 resulted in heavy losses, with regiments shattered by superior Soviet firepower and tactics. By August 25, encircled pockets were systematically eliminated, leading to the annihilation of the Japanese 6th Army. The defeat, coinciding with the Hitler-Stalin Pact, forced Japan to negotiate a ceasefire on September 15-16, redrawing borders. Zhukov's victory exposed Japanese weaknesses in mechanized warfare, influencing future strategies and deterring further northern expansion.   #192 The Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact 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. Despite the fact this technically will go into future events, I thought it was important we talk about a key moment in Sino history. Even though the battle of changkufeng and khalkin gol were not part of the second sino-Japanese war, their outcomes certainly would affect it.  Policymaking by the Soviet Union alone was not the primary factor in ending Moscow's diplomatic isolation in the late 1930s. After the Munich Conference signaled the failure of the popular front/united front approach, Neville Chamberlain, Adolf Hitler, and Poland's Józef Beck unintentionally strengthened Joseph Stalin's position in early 1939. Once the strategic cards were in his hands, Stalin capitalized on them. His handling of negotiations with Britain and France, as well as with Germany, from April to August was deft and effective. The spring and summer negotiations among the European powers are well documented and have been examined from many angles. In May 1939, while Stalin seemed to have the upper hand in Europe, yet before Hitler had signaled that a German–Soviet agreement might be possible, the Nomonhan incident erupted, a conflict initiated and escalated by the Kwantung Army. For a few months, the prospect of a Soviet–Japanese war revived concerns in Moscow about a two-front conflict. Reviewing Soviet talks with Britain, France, and Germany in the spring and summer of 1939 from an East Asian perspective sheds fresh light on the events that led to the German–Soviet Nonaggression Pact and, more broadly, to the outbreak of World War II. The second week of May marked the start of fighting at Nomonhan, during which negotiations between Germany and the USSR barely advanced beyond mutual scrutiny. Moscow signaled that an understanding with Nazi Germany might be possible. Notably, on May 4, the removal of Maksim Litvinov as foreign commissar and his replacement by Vyacheslav Molotov suggested a shift in approach. Litvinov, an urbane diplomat of Jewish origin and married to an Englishwoman, had been the leading Soviet proponent of the united-front policy and a steadfast critic of Nazi Germany. If a settlement with Hitler was sought, Litvinov was an unsuitable figure to lead the effort. Molotov, though with limited international experience, carried weight as chairman of the Council of Ministers and, more importantly, as one of Stalin's closest lieutenants. This personnel change seemed to accomplish its aim in Berlin, where the press was instructed on May 5 to halt polemical attacks on the Soviet Union and Bolshevism. On the same day, Karl Schnurre, head of the German Foreign Ministry's East European trade section, told Soviet chargé d'affaires Georgi Astakhov that Skoda, the German-controlled Czech arms manufacturer, would honor existing arms contracts with Russia. Astakhov asked whether, with Litvinov's departure, Germany might resume negotiations for a trade treaty Berlin had halted months earlier. By May 17, during discussions with Schnurre, Astakhov asserted that "there were no conflicts in foreign policy between Germany and the Soviet Union and that there was no reason for enmity between the two countries," and that Britain and France's negotiations appeared unpromising. The next day, Ribbentrop personally instructed Schulenburg to green-light trade talks. Molotov, however, insisted that a "political basis" for economic negotiations had to be established first. Suspicion remained high on both sides. Stalin feared Berlin might use reports of German–Soviet talks to destabilize a potential triple alliance with Britain and France; Hitler feared Stalin might use such reports to entice Tokyo away from an anti-German pact. The attempt to form a tripartite military alliance among Germany, Italy, and Japan foundered over divergent aims: Berlin targeted Britain and France; Tokyo aimed at the Soviet Union. Yet talks persisted through August 1939, with Japanese efforts to draw Germany into an anti-Soviet alignment continually reported to Moscow by Richard Sorge. Hitler and Mussolini, frustrated by Japanese objections, first concluded the bilateral Pact of Steel on May 22. The next day, Hitler, addressing his generals, stressed the inevitability of war with Poland and warned that opposition from Britain would be crushed militarily. He then hinted that Russia might "prove disinterested in the destruction of Poland," suggesting closer ties with Japan if Moscow opposed Germany. The exchange was quickly leaked to the press. Five days later, the first pitched battle of the Nomonhan campaign began. Although Hitler's timing with the Yamagata detachment's foray was coincidental, Moscow may have found the coincidence ominous. Despite the inducement of Molotov's call for a political basis before economic talks, Hitler and Ribbentrop did not immediately respond. On June 14, Astakhov signaled to Parvan Draganov, Bulgaria's ambassador in Berlin, that the USSR faced three options: ally with Britain and France, continue inconclusive talks with them, or align with Germany, the latter being closest to Soviet desires. Draganov relayed to the German Foreign Ministry that Moscow preferred a non-aggression agreement if Germany would pledge not to attack the Soviet Union. Two days later, Schulenburg told Astakhov that Germany recognized the link between economic and political relations and was prepared for far-reaching talks, a view echoed by Ribbentrop. The situation remained tangled: the Soviets pursued overt talks with Britain and France, while Stalin sought to maximize Soviet leverage. Chamberlain's stance toward Moscow remained wary but recognized a "psychological value" to an Anglo–Soviet rapprochement, tempered by his insistence on a hard bargain. American ambassador William C. Bullitt urged London to avoid the appearance of pursuing the Soviets, a view that resonated with Chamberlain's own distrust. Public confidence in a real Anglo–Soviet alliance remained low. By July 19, cabinet minutes show Chamberlain could not quite believe a genuine Russia–Germany alliance was possible, though he recognized the necessity of negotiations with Moscow to deter Hitler and to mollify an increasingly skeptical British public. Despite reservations, both sides kept the talks alive. Stalin's own bargaining style, with swift Soviet replies but frequent questions and demands, often produced delays. Molotov pressed on questions such as whether Britain and France would pledge to defend the Baltic states, intervene if Japan attacked the USSR, or join in opposing Germany if Hitler pressured Poland or Romania. These considerations were not trivial; they produced extended deliberations. On July 23, Molotov demanded that plans for coordinated military action among the three powers be fleshed out before a political pact. Britain and France accepted most political terms, and an Anglo-French military mission arrived in Moscow on August 11. The British commander, Admiral Sir Reginald Plunket-Ernle-Erle-Drax, conducted staff talks but could not conclude a military agreement. The French counterpart, General Joseph Doumenc, could sign but not bind his government. By then, Hitler had set August 26 as the date for war with Poland. With that looming, Hitler pressed for Soviet neutrality, or closer cooperation. In July and August, secret German–Soviet negotiations favored the Germans, who pressed for a rapid settlement and made most concessions. Yet Stalin benefited from keeping the British and French engaged, creating leverage against Hitler and safeguarding a potential Anglo–Soviet option as a fallback. To lengthen the talks and avoid immediate resolution, Moscow emphasized the Polish issue. Voroshilov demanded the Red Army be allowed to operate through Polish territory to defend Poland, a demand Warsaw would never accept. Moscow even floated a provocative plan: if Britain and France could compel Poland to permit Baltic State naval operations, the Western fleets would occupy Baltic ports, an idea that would have been militarily perilous and diplomatically explosive. Despite this, Stalin sought an agreement with Germany. Through Richard Sorge's intelligence, Moscow knew Tokyo aimed to avoid large-scale war with the USSR, and Moscow pressed for a German–Soviet settlement, including a nonaggression pact and measures to influence Japan to ease Sino–Japanese tensions. On August 16, Ribbentrop instructed Schulenburg to urge Molotov and Stalin toward a nonaggression pact and to coordinate with Japan. Stalin signaled willingness, and August 23–24 saw the drafting of the pact and the collapse of the Soviet and Japanese resistance elsewhere. That night, in a memorandum of Ribbentrop's staff, seven topics were summarized, with Soviet–Japanese relations and Molotov's insistence that Berlin demonstrate good faith standing out. Ribbentrop reiterated his willingness to influence Japan for a more favorable Soviet–Japanese relationship, and Stalin's reply indicated a path toward a détente in the East alongside the European agreement: "M. Stalin replied that the Soviet Union indeed desired an improvement in its relations with Japan, but that there were limits to its patience with regard to Japanese provocations. If Japan desired war she could have it. The Soviet Union was not afraid of it and was prepared for it. If Japan desired peace—so much the better! M. Stalin considered the assistance of Germany in bringing about an improvement in Soviet-Japanese relations as useful, but he did not want the Japanese to get the impression that the initiative in this direction had been taken by the Soviet Union."  Second, the assertion that the Soviet Union was prepared for and unafraid of war with Japan is an overstatement, though Stalin certainly had grounds for optimism regarding the battlefield situation and the broader East Asian strategic balance. It is notable that, despite the USSR's immediate diplomatic and military gains against Japan, Stalin remained anxious to conceal from Tokyo any peace initiative that originated in Moscow. That stance suggests that Tokyo or Hsinking might read such openness as a sign of Soviet weakness or confidence overextended. The Japanese danger, it would seem, did not disappear from Stalin's mind. Even at the height of his diplomatic coup, Stalin was determined not to burn bridges prematurely. On August 21, while he urged Hitler to send Ribbentrop to Moscow, he did not sever talks with Britain and France. Voroshilov requested a temporary postponement on the grounds that Soviet delegation officers were needed for autumn maneuvers. It was not until August 25, after Britain reiterated its resolve to stand by Poland despite the German–Soviet pact, that Stalin sent the Anglo–French military mission home. Fortified by the nonaggression pact, which he hoped would deter Britain and France from action, Hitler unleashed his army on Poland on September 1. Two days later, as Zhukov's First Army Group was completing its operations at Nomonhan, Hitler faced a setback when Britain and France declared war. Hitler had hoped to finish Poland quickly in 1939 and avoid fighting Britain and France until 1940. World War II in Europe had begun. The Soviet–Japanese conflict at Nomonhan was not the sole, nor even the principal, factor prompting Stalin to conclude an alliance with Hitler. Standing aside from a European war that could fracture the major capitalist powers might have been reason enough. Yet the conflict with Japan in the East was also a factor in Stalin's calculations, a dimension that has received relatively little attention in standard accounts of the outbreak of the war. This East Asian focus seeks to clarify the record without proposing a revolutionary reinterpretation of Soviet foreign policy; rather, it adds an important piece often overlooked in the "origins of the Second World War" puzzle, helping to reduce the overall confusion. The German–Soviet agreement provided for the Soviet occupation of the eastern half of Poland soon after Germany's invasion. On September 3, just forty-eight hours after the invasion and on the day Britain and France declared war, Ribbentrop urged Moscow to invade Poland from the east. Yet, for two more weeks, Poland's eastern frontier remained inviolate; Soviet divisions waited at the border, as most Polish forces were engaged against Germany. The German inquiries about the timing of the Soviet invasion continued, but the Red Army did not move. This inactivity is often attributed to Stalin's caution and suspicion, but that caution extended beyond Europe. Throughout early September, sporadic ground and air combat continued at Nomonhan, including significant activity by Kwantung Army forces on September 8–9, and large-scale air engagements on September 1–2, 4–5, and 14–15. Not until September 15 was the Molotov–Togo cease-fire arrangement finalized, to take effect on September 16. The very next morning, September 17, the Red Army crossed the Polish frontier into a country collapsed at its feet. It appears that Stalin wanted to ensure that fighting on his eastern flank had concluded before engaging in Western battles, avoiding a two-front war. Through such policies, Stalin avoided the disaster of a two-front war. Each principal in the 1939 diplomatic maneuvering pursued distinct objectives. The British sought an arrangement with the USSR that would deter Hitler from attacking Poland and, if deterred, bind Moscow to the Anglo–French alliance. Hitler sought an alliance with the USSR to deter Britain and France from aiding Poland and, if they did aid Poland, to secure Soviet neutrality. Japan sought a military alliance with Germany against the USSR, or failing that, stronger Anti-Comintern ties. Stalin aimed for an outcome in which Germany would fight the Western democracies, leaving him freedom to operate in both the West and East; failing that, he sought military reassurance from Britain and France in case he had to confront Germany. Of the four, only Stalin achieved his primary objective. Hitler secured his secondary objective; the British and Japanese failed to realize theirs. Stalin won the diplomatic contest in 1939. Yet, as diplomats gave way to generals, the display of German military power in Poland and in Western Europe soon eclipsed Stalin's diplomatic triumph. By playing Germany against Britain and France, Stalin gained leverage and a potential fallback, but at the cost of unleashing a devastating European war. As with the aftermath of the Portsmouth Treaty in 1905, Russo-Japanese relations improved rapidly after hostilities ceased at Nomonhan. The Molotov–Togo agreement of September 15 and the local truces arranged around Nomonhan on September 19 were observed scrupulously by both sides. On October 27, the two nations settled another long-standing dispute by agreeing to mutual release of fishing boats detained on charges of illegal fishing in each other's territorial waters. On November 6, the USSR appointed Konstantin Smetanin as ambassador to Tokyo, replacing the previous fourteen-month tenure of a chargé d'affaires. Smetanin's first meeting with the new Japanese foreign minister, Nomura Kichisaburö, in November 1939 attracted broad, favorable coverage in the Japanese press. In a break with routine diplomatic practice, Nomura delivered a draft proposal for a new fisheries agreement and a memo outlining the functioning of the joint border commission to be established in the Nomonhan area before Smetanin presented his credentials. On December 31, an agreement finalizing Manchukuo's payment to the USSR for the sale of the Chinese Eastern Railway was reached, and the Soviet–Japanese Fisheries Convention was renewed for 1940. In due course, the boundary near Nomonhan was formally redefined. A November 1939 agreement between Molotov and Togo established a mixed border commission representing the four parties to the dispute. After protracted negotiations, the border commission completed its redemarcation on June 14, 1941, with new border markers erected in August 1941. The resulting boundary largely followed the Soviet–MPR position, lying ten to twelve miles east of the Halha River. With that, the Nomonhan incident was officially closed.  Kwantung Army and Red Army leaders alike sought to "teach a lesson" to their foe at Nomonhan. The refrain recurs in documents and memoirs from both sides, "we must teach them a lesson." The incident provided lessons for both sides, but not all were well learned. For the Red Army, the lessons of Nomonhan intertwined with the laurels of victory, gratifying but sometimes distracting. Georgy Zhukov grasped the experience of modern warfare that summer, gaining more than a raised profile: command experience, confidence, and a set of hallmarks he would employ later. He demonstrated the ability to grasp complex strategic problems quickly, decisive crisis leadership, meticulous attention to logistics and deception, patience in building superior strength before striking at the enemy's weakest point, and the coordination of massed artillery, tanks, mechanized infantry, and tactical air power in large-scale double envelopment. These capabilities informed his actions at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, and ultimately Berlin. It is tempting to wonder how Zhukov might have fared in the crucial autumn and winter of 1941 without Nomonhan, or whether he would have been entrusted with the Moscow front in 1941 had he not distinguished himself at Nomonhan. Yet the Soviet High Command overlooked an important lesson. Despite Zhukov's successes with independent tank formations and mechanized infantry, the command misapplied Spanish Civil War-era experience by disbanding armored divisions and redistributing tanks to infantry units to serve as support. It was not until after Germany demonstrated tank warfare in 1940 that the Soviets began reconstituting armored divisions and corps, a process still incomplete when the 1941 invasion began. The Red Army's performance at Nomonhan went largely unseen in the West. Western intelligence and military establishments largely believed the Red Army was fundamentally rotten, a view reinforced by the battlefield's remoteness and by both sides' reluctance to publicize the defeat. The Polish crisis and the outbreak of war in Europe drew attention away from Nomonhan, and the later Finnish Winter War reinforced negative Western judgments of Soviet military capability. U.S. military attaché Raymond Faymonville observed that the Soviets, anticipating a quick victory over Finland, relied on hastily summoned reserves ill-suited for winter fighting—an assessment that led some to judge the Red Army by its performance at Nomonhan. Even in Washington, this view persisted; Hitler reportedly called the Red Army "a paralytic on crutches" after Finland and then ordered invasion planning in 1941. Defeat can be a stronger teacher than victory. Because Nomonhan was a limited war, Japan's defeat was likewise limited, and its impact on Tokyo did not immediately recalibrate Japanese assessments. Yet Nomonhan did force Japan to revise its estimation of Soviet strength: the Imperial Army abandoned its strategic Plan Eight-B and adopted a more defensive posture toward the Soviet Union. An official inquiry into the debacle, submitted November 29, 1939, recognized Soviet superiority in materiel and firepower and urged Japan to bolster its own capabilities. The Kwantung Army's leadership, chastened, returned to the frontier with a more realistic sense of capability, even as the Army Ministry and AGS failed to translate lessons into policy. The enduring tendency toward gekokujo, the dominance of local and mid-level officers over central authority, remained persistent, and Tokyo did not fully purge it after Nomonhan. The Kwantung Army's operatives who helped drive the Nomonhan episode resurfaced in key posts at Imperial General Headquarters, contributing to Japan's 1941 decision to go to war. The defeat of the Kwantung Army at Nomonhan, together with the Stalin–Hitler pact and the outbreak of war in Europe, triggered a reorientation of Japanese strategy and foreign policy. The new government, led by the politically inexperienced and cautious General Abe Nobuyuki, pursued a conservative foreign policy. Chiang Kai-shek's retreat to Chongqing left the Chinese war at a stalemate: the Japanese Expeditionary Army could still inflict defeats on Chinese nationalist forces, but it had no viable path to a decisive victory. China remained Japan's principal focus. Still, the option of cutting Soviet aid to China and of moving north into Outer Mongolia and Siberia was discredited in Tokyo by the August 1939 double defeat. Northward expansion never again regained its ascendancy, though it briefly resurfaced in mid-1941 after Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union. Germany's alliance with the USSR during Nomonhan was viewed by Tokyo as a betrayal, cooling German–Japanese relations. Japan also stepped back from its confrontation with Britain over Tientsin. Tokyo recognized that the European war represented a momentous development that could reshape East Asia, as World War I had reshaped it before. The short-lived Abe government (September–December 1939) and its successor under Admiral Yonai Mitsumasa (December 1939–July 1940) adopted a cautious wait-and-see attitude toward the European war. That stance shifted in the summer of 1940, however, after Germany's successes in the West. With Germany's conquest of France and the Low Countries and Britain's fight for survival, Tokyo reassessed the global balance of power. Less than a year after Zhukov had effectively blocked further Japanese expansion northward, Hitler's victories seemed to open a southern expansion path. The prospect of seizing the resource-rich colonies in Southeast Asia, Dutch, French, and British and, more importantly, resolving the China problem in Japan's favor, tempted many in Tokyo. If Western aid to Chiang Kai-shek, channeled through Hong Kong, French Indochina, and Burma could be cut off, some in Tokyo believed Chiang might abandon resistance. If not, Japan could launch new operations against Chiang from Indochina and Burma, effectively turning China's southern flank. To facilitate a southward advance, Japan sought closer alignment with Germany and the USSR. Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka brought Japan into the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, in the hope of neutralizing the United States, and concluded a neutrality pact with the Soviet Union to secure calm in the north. Because of the European military situation, only the United States could check Japan's southward expansion. President Franklin D. Roosevelt appeared determined to do so and confident that he could. If the Manchurian incident and the Stimson Doctrine strained U.S.–Japanese relations, and the China War and U.S. aid to Chiang Kai-shek deepened mutual resentment, it was Japan's decision to press south against French, British, and Dutch colonies, and Roosevelt's resolve to prevent such a move, that put the two nations on a collision course. The dust had barely settled on the Mongolian plains following the Nomonhan ceasefire when the ripples of that distant conflict began to reshape the broader theater of the Second Sino-Japanese War. The defeat at Nomonhan in August 1939, coupled with the shocking revelation of the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, delivered a profound strategic blow to Japan's imperial ambitions. No longer could Tokyo entertain serious notions of a "northern advance" into Soviet territory, a strategy that had long tantalized military planners as a means to secure resources and buffer against communism. Instead, the Kwantung Army's humiliation exposed glaring deficiencies in Japanese mechanized warfare, logistics, and intelligence, forcing a pivot southward. This reorientation not only cooled tensions with the Soviet Union but also allowed Japan to redirect its military focus toward the protracted stalemate in China. As we transition from the border clashes of the north to the heartland tensions in central China, it's essential to trace how these events propelled Japan toward the brink of a major offensive in Hunan Province, setting the stage for what would become a critical confrontation. In the immediate aftermath of Nomonhan, Japan's military high command grappled with the implications of their setback. The Kwantung Army, once a symbol of unchecked aggression, was compelled to adopt a defensive posture along the Manchurian-Soviet border. The ceasefire agreement, formalized on September 15-16, 1939, effectively neutralized the northern front, freeing up significant resources and manpower that had been tied down in the escalating border skirmishes. This was no small relief; the Nomonhan campaign had drained Japanese forces, with estimates of over 18,000 casualties and the near-total annihilation of the 23rd Division. The psychological impact was equally severe, shattering the myth of Japanese invincibility against a modern, mechanized opponent. Georgy Zhukov's masterful use of combined arms—tanks, artillery, and air power—highlighted Japan's vulnerabilities, prompting internal reviews that urged reforms in tank production, artillery doctrine, and supply chains. Yet, these lessons were slow to implement, and in the short term, the primary benefit was the opportunity to consolidate efforts elsewhere. For Japan, "elsewhere" meant China, where the war had devolved into a grinding attrition since the fall of Wuhan in October 1938. The capture of Wuhan, a major transportation hub and temporary capital of the Nationalist government under Chiang Kai-shek, had been hailed as a turning point. Japanese forces, under the command of General Shunroku Hata, had pushed deep into central China, aiming to decapitate Chinese resistance. However, Chiang's strategic retreat to Chongqing transformed the conflict into a war of endurance. Nationalist forces, bolstered by guerrilla tactics and international aid, harassed Japanese supply lines and prevented a decisive knockout blow. By mid-1939, Japan controlled vast swaths of eastern and northern China, including key cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and Nanjing, but the cost was immense: stretched logistics, mounting casualties, and an inability to fully pacify occupied territories. The Nomonhan defeat exacerbated these issues by underscoring the limits of Japan's military overextension. With the northern threat abated, Tokyo's Army General Staff saw an opening to intensify operations in China, hoping to force Chiang to the negotiating table before global events further complicated the picture. The diplomatic fallout from Nomonhan and the Hitler-Stalin Pact further influenced this shift. Japan's betrayal by Germany, its nominal ally under the Anti-Comintern Pact—fostered distrust and isolation. Tokyo's flirtations with a full Axis alliance stalled, as the pact with Moscow revealed Hitler's willingness to prioritize European gains over Asian solidarity. This isolation prompted Japan to reassess its priorities, emphasizing self-reliance in China while eyeing opportunistic expansions elsewhere. Domestically, the Hiranuma cabinet collapsed in August 1939 amid the diplomatic shock, paving the way for the more cautious Abe Nobuyuki government. Abe's administration, though short-lived, signaled a temporary de-escalation in aggressive posturing, but the underlying imperative to resolve the "China Incident" persisted. Japanese strategists believed that capturing additional strategic points in central China could sever Chiang's lifelines, particularly the routes funneling aid from the Soviet Union and the West via Burma and Indochina. The seismic shifts triggered by Nomonhan compelled Japan to fundamentally readjust its China policy and war plans, marking a pivotal transition from overambitious northern dreams to a more focused, albeit desperate, campaign in the south. With the Kwantung Army's defeat fresh in mind, Tokyo's Imperial General Headquarters initiated a comprehensive strategic review in late August 1939. The once-dominant "Northern Advance" doctrine, which envisioned rapid conquests into Siberia for resources like oil and minerals, was officially shelved. In its place emerged a "Southern Advance" framework, prioritizing the consolidation of gains in China and potential expansions into Southeast Asia. This pivot was not merely tactical; it reflected a profound policy recalibration aimed at ending the quagmire in China, where two years of war had yielded territorial control but no decisive victory over Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists. Central to this readjustment was a renewed emphasis on economic and military self-sufficiency. The Nomonhan debacle had exposed Japan's vulnerabilities in mechanized warfare, leading to urgent reforms in industrial production. Tank manufacturing was ramped up, with designs influenced by observed Soviet models, and artillery stockpiles were bolstered to match the firepower discrepancies seen on the Mongolian steppes. Logistically, the Army General Staff prioritized streamlining supply lines in China, recognizing that prolonged engagements demanded better resource allocation. Politically, the Abe Nobuyuki cabinet, installed in September 1939, adopted a "wait-and-see" approach toward Europe but aggressively pursued diplomatic maneuvers to isolate China. Efforts to negotiate with Wang Jingwei's puppet regime in Nanjing intensified, aiming to undermine Chiang's legitimacy and splinter Chinese resistance. Japan also pressured Vichy France for concessions in Indochina, seeking to choke off aid routes to Chongqing. War plans evolved accordingly, shifting from broad-front offensives to targeted strikes designed to disrupt Chinese command and supply networks. The China Expeditionary Army, under General Yasuji Okamura, was restructured to emphasize mobility and combined arms operations, drawing partial lessons from Zhukov's tactics. Intelligence operations were enhanced, with greater focus on infiltrating Nationalist strongholds in central provinces. By early September, plans coalesced around a major push into Hunan Province, a vital crossroads linking northern and southern China. Hunan's river systems and rail lines made it a linchpin for Chinese logistics, funneling men and materiel to the front lines. Japanese strategists identified key urban centers in the region as critical objectives, believing their capture could sever Chiang's western supply corridors and force a strategic retreat. This readjustment was not without internal friction. Hardliners in the military lamented the abandonment of northern ambitions, but the reality of Soviet strength—and the neutrality pacts that followed—left little room for debate. Economically, Japan ramped up exploitation of occupied Chinese territories, extracting coal, iron, and rice to fuel the war machine. Diplomatically, Tokyo sought to mend fences with the Soviets through the 1941 Neutrality Pact, ensuring northern security while eyes turned south. Yet, these changes brewed tension with the United States, whose embargoes on scrap metal and oil threatened to cripple Japan's ambitions. As autumn approached, the stage was set for a bold gambit in central China. Japanese divisions massed along the Yangtze River, poised to strike at the heart of Hunan's defenses. Intelligence reports hinted at Chinese preparations, with Xue Yue's forces fortifying positions around a major provincial hub. The air thickened with anticipation of a clash that could tip the balance in the interminable war—a test of Japan's revamped strategies against a resilient foe determined to hold the line. What unfolded would reveal whether Tokyo's post-Nomonhan pivot could deliver the breakthrough so desperately needed, or if it would merely prolong the bloody stalemate. 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. In 1939, the Nomonhan Incident saw Soviet forces under Georgy Zhukov decisively defeat Japan's Kwantung Army at Khalkin Gol, exposing Japanese weaknesses in mechanized warfare. This setback, coupled with the Hitler-Stalin Nonaggression Pact, shattered Japan's northern expansion plans and prompted a strategic pivot southward. Diplomatic maneuvers involving Stalin, Hitler, Britain, France, and Japan reshaped alliances, leading to the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact in 1941. Japan refocused on China, intensifying operations in Hunan Province to isolate Chiang Kai-shek.   

देश के कोने कोने से आवाज़ें आ रहीं हैं. AQI डबल से ट्रिपल डिजिट हुआ जा रहा है इसका ख़्याल कीजिए. हवा में जो ज़हर घुलता जा रहा है इसका ख़्याल कीजिए. क्योंकि WHO के आंकड़े ऐसा बताते हैं कि दुनिया की 99% जनता, Air Pollution के सीधे ख़तरों से प्रभावित है. न उनका दिल सुरक्षित है, न दिमाग और न फेंफड़े. अब जब बात इतनी गंभीर है, तो इस पर बात होना भी Urgent हो जाता है. तो याद रखिए, Padhaku Nitin का ये एपिसोड सिर्फ़ इंट्रेस्टिंग ही नहीं बेहद Urgent भी है. आज बात करेंगे की Air Pollution की समस्या को Solve करने में हम कहां पीछे रह रहे हैं? क्या Policy Making की कमी है? या क्या हम इस प्रॉबल्म को Misjudge कर रहे हैं? क्या Pollution के चलते सिर्फ़ हमारी Society ही नहीं, Economy भी धीमे धीमे नुकसान उठा रही है? फोकस दिल्ली पर भी करेंगे. पूछेंगे कि क्या AQI को टेंप्रेचर का स्केल बता देना या पानी छिड़क देना Monitoring Scales के आसपास. किसी भी तरह से Pollution को मिटाने के लिए कोई वैज्ञानिक तरीका है? यही पूछा है इस एपिसोड में जाने माने Environmentalist Chandra Bhushan जी से. पिछले दो दशकों से ये लगातार Environment से जुड़े मुद्दों पर गहरी रिसर्च करते हैं, करवाते हैं. Panels का हिस्सा होते हैं और उस चर्चा से और भी आगे बढ़कर चीज़ें समझाते हैं जहां Air Pollution की चर्चा दिल्ली की गाड़ियों से शुरू होती है. iForest (International Forum for Environment, Sustainability और Technology) नाम की प्रतिष्ठित संस्था के CEO भी हैं. एपिसोड पूरा सुनिएगा. प्रड्यूसर: मानव देव रावत साउंड मिक्स: अमन पाल

Some guests come with headlines before they even speak. In this episode, Stephanie sits down with Catherine McKenna, climate advocate, former cabinet minister, and author of Run Like a Girl, for a candid conversation about leadership, resilience, and staying human in high-pressure roles. From motherhood and boundaries to climate advocacy and politics, Catherine shares what she learned the hard way and what she still believes is worth fighting for.This episode covers:Why Catherine wrote Run Like a Girl and what she hopes women and young people take from itWhat it was really like being a woman in politics, including public scrutiny and staying authenticHow to protect your energy in demanding seasons, including the decision to turn off her phone at nightWhat perseverance looks like when the work is hard and progress feels fragileWhy advocacy takes time and teamwork, including the shared story behind Thaidene Nëné National Park ReserveA moment that shaped her perspective on platform and bravery, including lessons from the ObamasIf you are leading, parenting, advocating, or simply trying to get through the day, this episode is a reminder that you can do meaningful work without losing yourself and that you are allowed to do things your own way.Books mentionedRun Like a Girl by Catherine McKennaNo Logo by Naomi KleinAn Inconvenient Truth by Al GoreDubliners by James JoyceWhere the Wild Things Are by Maurice SendakHow to find WOMENdontDOthat:Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/womendontdothatInstagram - http://www.instagram.com/womendontdothat/TikTok- http://www.tiktok.com/@womendontdothatBlog- https://www.womendontdothat.com/blogPodcast- https://www.womendontdothat.com/podcastNewsletter- https://www.beaconnorthstrategies.com/contactwww.womendontdothat.comYouTube - http://www.youtube.com/@WOMENdontDOthatHow to find Stephanie Mitton:Twitter/X- https://twitter.com/StephanieMittonLinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephaniemitton/beaconnorthstrategies.comTikTok- https://www.tiktok.com/@stephmittonInstagram- https://www.instagram.com/stephaniemitton/Interested in sponsorship? Contact us at hello@womendontdothat.comProduced by Duke & CastleOur Latest Blog: https://www.womendontdothat.com/post/i-don-t-do-resolutions-i-do-this-perfect-for-busy-women Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Kia ora,Welcome to Wednesday's Economy Watch where we follow the economic events and trends that affect Aotearoa/New Zealand.I'm David Chaston and this is the international edition from Interest.co.nz.Today we lead with news the US dollar fell for a fourth consecutive session today, sliding to its lowest level since February 2022. It's a -3.5% devaluation in just one week. Some think the US Administration is engineering the fall to bolster its export competitiveness as the US factory sector misfires, tariffs aren't working other than raising costs, and to put pressure on the Fed ahead of its meeting next week.First up today however there was another dairy Pulse auction earlier this morning and that brought some interesting signals. The WMP price came in almost identical to last week's full auction and has been holding at this higher level since the start of 2026 when it made that 7%-plus jump. The SMP price rose a strong +5.9% today from last week, and is now +9% higher than what is was at the end of 2025.. Positive signs, but somewhat undermined by the fast-falling USD.In the US, the weekly ADP employment update recorded a weekly gain of under +8000, continuing the slow easing that they have been recording since the end of November. January non-farm payrolls which will be released at the end of next week, is currently expected to show a very tame +40,000 jobs gain which will continue the weak run that started in May 2025.And that may be optimistic, The Conference Board's consumer sentiment survey for January reported that confidence collapsed to lowest point since 2014, to levels even lower than the pandemic depths. It is now back to levels as it rose from the GFC.But the latest factory survey, this one by the Richmond Fed in the mid-Atlantic states, showed little-change from its already negative levels. New order levels rose marginally however, but because that is on a dollar basis it might just be because the same survey shows high price increase activity, required by even higher cost increase levels.More positive was the January Dallas Fed services survey, which moved up into positive territory in January after four months of consecutive retreat.Today's US Treasury 5yr Note auction brought the same median yield rise from the prior equivalent event a month ago. Higher risk premiums are getting embeddedIn China, industrial profits rose +5.3% in December from the same month a year ago. They will be pleased with that because for the whole of calendar 2025 they were up merely +0.6% (and would have declined but for the December rise).In India, we can confirm the signing of their big trade deal with the EU, removing both tariff and non-tariff barriers.. The US isn't happy.In Europe, we should note that Swedish officials are looking at what it would take to ditch the krona in favour of the euro. An independent review has already pointed out that the benefits would greatly outweigh the costs. The Swedes last voted on this issue in 2003.In Australia, business sentiment as measured by the NAB survey, was stable and mildly positive in December. Business conditions however improved more strongly on better sales and margins.Later today, Australia will publish its December CPI result, and after the strong labour market for January, will be closely followed and could very well move financial markets. They had 3.4% inflation in November and this December result is expected to be 3.6%. This will be very influential on the RBA's deliberations at next Tuesday's cash rate target review.The UST 10yr yield is now just on 4.23%, up +2 bps from this time yesterday.The price of gold will start today at US$5087/oz, unchanged from yesterday and holding at its record high. Silver is down to US$107/oz. Platinum has fallen more sharply and now at US$2522, down -US$335/oz from yesterday.American oil prices are up +US$1 at just under US$62/bbl, while the international Brent price is softish, now just under US$67/bbl and up a bit more. This is all USD devaluation-driven.The Kiwi dollar is up +50 bps from yesterday, now at 60.2 USc as the greenback goes into another devaluation stage. Against the Aussie we are down -10 bps at 86.3 AUc. Against the euro we are also down -20 bps at just on 50.2 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today just under 63.7, and up +20 bps from yesterday, its highest since late September.The bitcoin price starts today at US$88,576 and up +1.0% from this time yesterday. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been low at just under +/- 0.9%.You can get more news affecting the economy in New Zealand from interest.co.nz.Kia ora. I'm David Chaston and we'll do this again tomorrow.

In this episode of the Emerald Podcast Series, host Nick Wallwork is joined by Lindsey Garner-Knapp and Tamara Mulherin, co-editors of the book Informality and Policymaking: Weaving the Threads of Everyday Policy Work. Welcome to Emerald Podcast Series. Join our hosts as they talk to experts using their research to create real impact in society. In each episode we explore the role research plays in our modern world, and ask how it can contribute to solving the complex environmental, economic, social and political challenges facing our planet.

This week Liz Ann Sonders and Kathy Jones discuss the implications of a possible announcement of the next Federal Reserve chair nominee and market reactions to potential interest rate cuts. They also look at the dynamics of global central banks and explore the current state of the stock market, highlighting trends and dispersion among stocks. The discussion also covers upcoming economic data and the significance of next week's Fed meeting, emphasizing the complexities of managing interest rates in a changing economic landscape.On Investing is an original podcast from Charles Schwab. For more on the show, visit schwab.com/OnInvesting. If you enjoy the show, please leave a rating or review on Apple Podcasts.Important DisclosuresThis material is intended for general informational and educational purposes only. This should not be considered an individualized recommendation or personalized investment advice. The investment strategies mentioned are not suitable for everyone. Each investor needs to review an investment strategy for his or her own particular situation before making any investment decisions.All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice in reaction to shifting market, economic or political conditions. Data contained herein from third party providers is obtained from what are considered reliable sources. However, its accuracy, completeness or reliability cannot be guaranteed.Past performance is no guarantee of future results.Investing involves risk, including loss of principal. Performance may be affected by risks associated with non-diversification, including investments in specific countries or sectors. Additional risks may also include, but are not limited to, investments in foreign securities, especially emerging markets, real estate investment trusts (REITs), fixed income, municipal securities including state specific municipal securities, small capitalization securities and commodities. Each individual investor should consider these risks carefully before investing in a particular security or strategy.All names and market data shown above are for illustrative purposes only and are not a recommendation, offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security.Diversification and rebalancing strategies do not ensure a profit and do not protect against losses in declining markets.Indexes are unmanaged, do not incur management fees, costs, and expenses and cannot be invested in directly. Forecasts contained herein are for illustrative purposes only, may be based upon proprietary research and are developed through analysis of historical public data.The policy analysis provided by Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., does not constitute and should not be interpreted as an endorsement of any political party.(1225-HB56) Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Monique Priestley is a Vermont State Representative focused on data privacy, AI, right to repair, and the future of work. Monique serves on the House Commerce & Economic Development Committee, Joint IT Oversight Committee, and multiple national tech policy task forces. She was named a 2024 EPIC Champion of Freedom. In this episode… State privacy laws are evolving faster than ever, yet the dynamics shaping them often remain out of view for most organizations. Technology shifts quickly, and the issues raised in proposed privacy and AI bills require far more research and preparation than the calendar allows. That's why lawmakers work year-round to understand these complex technologies and collaborate with their peers in other states to refine definitions and bill provisions, ensuring that appropriate privacy protections are in place.  Many states entered 2025 with strong privacy bills on the table, yet progress slowed as industry counterproposals and competing drafts drew support away from stronger models, making it harder for legislators to keep consumer privacy protections intact. Vermont State Representative Monique Priestley has seen this firsthand and brings a unique lens to this dynamic, drawing on her discussions with the public and her collaborative work with lawmakers across the country.  As public concerns about privacy and AI grow and privacy laws evolve, companies will need to be proactive about the steps they take to protect people's data and be clear about how those protections work.  In this episode of She Said Privacy/He Said Security, Jodi and Justin Daniels talk with Monique Priestley, Vermont State Representative, about the realities that shape state-level privacy and AI legislation. Monique discusses the behind-the-scenes work required to educate lawmakers and build strong, technology-informed privacy and AI bills, and what might change in the year ahead. She also shares insights into the public's rising concerns about how their data is used, highlighting the steps companies can take to build trust.

You can find the documents Kushal mentioned here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1oq8-ThZXkgSbE-iDN9Plm8X-MYrDgJDH?usp=sharingSubscribe to Dostcast Clips:https://www.youtube.com/@dostcastclips?sub_confirmation=1Listen to Dostcast on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/70vrbHeSvrcXyOeISTyBSy?si=be05dbdd564245d9Join the Dostcast Janta Party on WhatsApp for regular updates: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbAZwo5D8SDs5kf94N3TWant to suggest a guest?Fill this form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ft_-1QDs7XpsSWnaPOeF21yUlhk9bzKvwHSyh4hHfBU/edit?usp=drivesdk====================================================================Kushal Mehra is a prominent political commentator, podcaster, and host of The Cārvāka Podcast.In this episode, Vinamre and Kushal talk about:- The shocking truth about who really makes policies in India- The Delhi air pollution crisis NO ONE is solving- The ugly reality of media manipulation in policy making- Why the common person's voice doesn't matter in politics- What YOU can actually do to change the systemFollow Kushal Mehra:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarvakapodcast/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheC%C4%81rv%C4%81kaPodcastTimestamps:0:00 Coming Up1:05 People Sending 1 Rupee2:16 What Are Public Policies?9:35 What Comes Under Policies?14:15 The Sad State of Media in India21:20 Facts About Policy Making25:42 The Constitution's Role in Making New Policy29:50 Who Actually Decides Policy?33:54 Do Rich People Have Influence?36:18 Effects of a Change in Policy40:53 Delhi's Situation and AQI56:28 Who Can Actually Fix This?1:03:28 The Beauty of Free Markets1:10:28 Misuse of Discretionary Power1:13:28 Tukaram Omble & The Police Force in India1:22:18 Worst Policies in History1:27:53 What Should We Look For, Exactly?1:43:23 How People Think After Being Influenced1:51:28 What Can People Actually Do?2:08:28 Conclusion====================================================================Vinamre Kasanaa is a writer at heart, podcaster and entrepreneur by craft.He spends a significant part of his time reading and researching.With over 500 podcasts under his belt, he's interviewed everyone—from HNIs and industry leaders to everyday superheroes.Follow Vinamre:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vinamre-kasanaa-b8524496/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/vinamrekasanaa/Twitter: https://twitter.com/VinamreKasanaaDostcast: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dostcast/Twitter: https://twitter.com/dostcast====================================================================Contact Us:For business inquiries: dostcast@egiplay.com

Dr. Patrick Schröder, a senior research fellow at Chatham House, assesses the progress and barriers for circular economy policymaking. Patrick Schröder specializes in the circular economy, climate change, resource governance, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). His work brings together science, policy, and media to help further evidence-based policies, communicate complex sustainability issues, and promote equitable governance solutions at the multilateral level. Patrick is currently the Coordinating Lead Author for one of the three working groups for the IPCC Assessment Report 7, reporting on Mitigation of Climate Change, and he is also the Coordinating Lead Author for the UN Global Environment Outlook 7. Patrick holds a PhD in Environmental Studies, and is now studying part-time for a second PhD in circular and regenerative design with the Centre for Sustainable Design. In 2024, UNIDO and Chatham House published a ground-breaking global stocktake of 75 national circular economy roadmaps featuring more than 2,800 policy actions. The first roadmap, from Japan, was published in 1999, and since 2016, as governments strive to accelerate their circular transitions, over 70 countries have published national circular economy roadmaps and strategies. The review aims to ‘bridge knowledge gaps and shed light on critical aspects of these publications', and the authors point to a ‘significant lack of focus on the need to ensure a just and inclusive' transition, warning that a ‘lack of recognition of the need to work collaboratively with the global community' risks derailing a global just transition. Patrick tells us how he currently sees the global state of play for circular economy policies and roadmaps, where progress is happening and from a policymaking perspective, what is holding it back. The team at Chatham House have created a micro-site – circulareconomy.earth – and Patrick tells us more about that, and how we can use it. Stay in touch for free insights and updates…  Read on for more on our guest and links to the people, organisations and other resources we mention. Links we mention in the episode: Links for our guest: DISCOUNT CODE for A Circular Economy Handbook: How to Build a More Resilient, Competitive and Sustainable Business https://www.koganpage.com/CircEcon3 buy direct from the publisher Kogan Page, which ships worldwide (free shipping to UK and US) and you can use discount code KOGANPAGE25 for 25% off the book. This offer also applies to Kogan Page’s bundle option (print plus e-book for the same price as the print edition).  Read more about the book and download the Introduction: circulareconomyhandbook.com Read more about Patrick Schröder: https://www.chathamhouse.org/about-us/our-people/patrick-schroder Patrick Schröder's publications on Google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xeaCha8AAAAJ&hl=en Patrick Schröder on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-schr%C3%B6der-b5789119/?originalSubdomain=uk The circular economy global policy microsite: circulareconomy.earth Books, people and organisations we mentioned The Chatham House paper launched during the Summit of the Future in NY:https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/09/how-circular-economy-can-revive-sustainable-development-goals Patrick's paper on the SDGs and Circular Economy in the Journal of Industrial Ecology: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patrick-Schroeder-9/publication/344220320_The_Relevance_of_Circular_Economy_Practices_to_the_Sustainable_Development_Goals/links/5f85b316458515b7cf7c9143/The-Relevance-of-Circular-Economy-Practices-to-the-Sustainable-Development-Goals.pdf Human Development and Circular Economy paper (co-authored by Patrick Shroeder with Peter Desmond and Alex Lemile): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344920300082 The Lancet Countdown on health and plastics https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(25)01447-3/abstract Episode 166 Circularity Gap Report 2025: insights https://www.rethinkglobal.info/166-circularity-gap-report-2025-insights/   Episode 119 Ken Webster: the circular ECONOMY https://www.rethinkglobal.info/119-ken-webster-the-circular-economy/ Episode 119 Bonus Ken Webster: the circular ECONOMY! Part 2 https://www.rethinkglobal.info/119-bonus-ken-webster-the-circular-economy-part-2/ Guest bio Patrick Schröder is a senior research fellow at Chatham House. He specializes in the circular economy, climate change, resource governance, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  He works at the intersection of science, policy, and media to advance evidence-based policies, communicate complex sustainability issues, and promote equitable governance solutions at the multilateral level. He currently serves as Coordinating Lead Author for the IPCC Assessment Report 7 (WG III – Mitigation) and Coordinating Lead Author for the UN Global Environment Outlook 7. He holds a PhD in Environmental Studies from Victoria University of Wellington, NZ, and currently studies part-time for a second PhD in circular and regenerative design with the Centre for Sustainable Design. Chatham House – The Royal Institute of International Affairs – is a world-leading policy institute based in London, dedicated to helping governments and societies build a sustainably secure, prosperous, and just world. The Environment and Society Centre (ESC) at Chatham House examines how environmental change intersects with global economics, politics, and society. Its work focuses on advancing systemic solutions to address climate change, resource governance, and accelerate circular economy transitions — fostering dialogue and evidence-based strategies that align environmental sustainability with social equity and geopolitical realities. Please let us know what you think of the podcast – and we'd love it if you could leave us a review on iTunes, or wherever you find your podcasts.  Or send us an email… Search for previous episodes….

Tara Sinclair is a professor and chair of the economics department at George Washington University. Tara returns to the show to discuss her ambitious paper simulating an FOMC meeting before it happens with LLM models, the process of building sim FOMC members, the importance of publicly funding economic data, the future of AI and macroeconomics, and much more. Check out the transcript for this week's episode, now with links. Recorded on October 27th, 2025 Subscribe to David's Substack: Macroeconomic Policy Nexus Follow David Beckworth on X: @DavidBeckworth Follow Tara on X: @TaraSinc Follow the show on X: @Macro_Musings Check out our Macro Musings merch! Subscribe to David's new BTS YouTube Channel  Timestamps 00:00:00 - Intro 00:01:44 - Data and Policymaking 00:05:28 - Federal Forecasters Conference 00:08:01 - FOMC in Silico 00:32:56 - Future Applications 00:38:29 - Broader Implications 00:42:57 - Central Bank Governance and AI 00:51:40 - Outro

Crypto's growing presence in Washington is entering a new phase. Following a high-profile presidential pardon and a surge in political spending across the digital asset sector, questions are emerging about how influence, lobbying, and access are shaping the policy environment for Web3. With major industry players building substantial political war chests and even stablecoin issuers signaling plans to participate directly in U.S. elections, crypto's role in the political arena is shifting fast.In this episode of Byte-Sized Insight, we speak with Brendan Glavin, Director of Insights at OpenSecrets, to break down the rapid rise of crypto lobbying, what recent developments tell us about the industry's strategy in Washington, and what increased political engagement could mean for regulation, market dynamics, and the future of decentralization in the United States.(01:48) Background: Timeline of the pardon, legal context, industry response(03:36) Political backlash: Maxine Waters & Elizabeth Warren respond(04:03) NYT report clip: Binance, Trump ties & World Liberty Financial financing(04:49) White House response: Karoline Leavitt on prosecution & crypto climate(05:42) Context: Trump's pro-crypto platform and regulatory shift(06:28) Guest introduction: Brendan Glavin of OpenSecrets(08:18) Why crypto began lobbying in Washington(10:16) Binance-linked lobbying for executive relief & Trump ties(11:16) Power concentration concerns: who gets access in crypto politics?(13:54) Risks to small builders, decentralization, policy fairnessThis episode was hosted and produced by Savannah Fortis, @savannah_fortis.Follow Cointelegraph on X @Cointelegraph.Check out Cointelegraph at cointelegraph.com.If you like what you heard, rate us and leave a review!The views, thoughts and opinions expressed in this podcast are its participants alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph. This podcast (and any related content) is for entertainment purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, nor should it be taken as such. Everyone must do their own research and make their own decisions. The podcast's participants may or may not own any of the assets mentioned.

Evidence-based policy. Randomised Control Trials or RCTs. These are buzzwords in developmental policy these days. They have become almost synonymous with each other. The ‘evidence' in ‘evidence-based' has largely come to mean whatever data is produced by one method of research – RCTs. But as some economists have been trying to tell us, RCTs have their limits. Regardless of whether it is RCTs, or some other research methodology, is it wise to let so-called ‘evidence' be the sole arbiter of public policy? What are the ways in which ‘evidence-based' approaches can go wrong, and how have RCTs ended up being misused, resulting in actual harm? Guest: Professor Jean Drèze, Development Economist Host: G Sampath Recorded, edited, and produced by Jude Francis Weston Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At long last, Jeff Alstott, the fairy godfather of DC AI policy, joins the show. He's the founding director for RAND's center for technology and security policy, TASP, worked at NSC, NSF and IARPA, and has a PhD in complex networks. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At long last, Jeff Alstott, the fairy godfather of DC AI policy, joins the show. He's the founding director for RAND's center for technology and security policy, TASP, worked at NSC, NSF and IARPA, and has a PhD in complex networks. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Meet Meske!!  Meske will provide a voice from the mom, advocate, and survivor perspective at an interim study designed to highlight the need to improve access to developmental screenings to Oklahoma's youngest children, and we want you to know her and understand the why behind her passion.  This is episode one of three, where you get to meet Meske and learn about Meske as a mom, advocate, incredible human and friend!    Note From Meske: "I'm not an expert in any formal sense. I don't have a degree or credentials. Life circumstances interrupted every graduation I ever worked toward. What I do have is knowledge, experience, and perspective — a life lived in very diverse circles, literally and figuratively on both sides of the tracks. My childhood wasn't bad, but it was heavy. I had access to social circles some people only dream about, but life took me in a different direction. Mental health struggles, relationships, finances, global events — they all influenced my path. And while I've made my share of mistakes, most of the time it felt like life kept handing me situations I couldn't control. That's how I came to my personal tagline: “I'm usually the exception to the rule. The medical mystery. I don't fit in anyone's box. The only kind of luck I have is bad luck — so I'm not a betting person.” But over time, I began to realize my life had a bigger purpose. These experiences — the good, the bad, the unfair, the painful — weren't meaningless. They were shaping me into someone who could see people differently, connect more deeply, and speak honestly about what most people avoid. Still, things got worse before they got better. An important person in my childhood used to tell me to have “faith the size of a mustard seed,” so I started carrying one with me. But faith didn't erase the pain. Time doesn't heal all wounds, it just lets them scab over. I realized I had grown comfortable in chaos because it was familiar. There were lessons along the way — sometimes only in the form of cliché sayings that became lifelines. And then came the next chapters: marriage, military service, two kids, deployment, divorce, relocation, three more kids, building a business, domestic violence, housing instability, PTSD, developmental disabilities, and trauma stacked on trauma. That's where I found myself three years ago. Since then, life has still been full of ups and downs. Healing doesn't stop life from happening. Kids still need love, bills still come due, people still take advantage when you let them. But the difference is that I finally began prioritizing myself, setting boundaries, and holding on to integrity and accountability. That's when the people I needed started finding me. Along this journey, I've been trained in TBRI (Trust-Based Relational Intervention), Partners in Policymaking, PCIT (Parent-Child Interaction Therapy), and Circle of Security. I've worked on early screenings and even contributed to an interim study. Those experiences gave me language for what I had already lived — and tools to help my kids and others “from hard places” not just survive, but start to heal. That's the lens I bring to this conversation: lived experience, layered with training and advocacy, all rooted in a belief that stories — even the messy ones — can change systems and change lives."

America is facing deep political division. Republican vs. Democrat, Left vs. Right. But what will it truly take for us to come together as one nation again? On this episode, former California State Assemblyman Mike Gatto sits down with host and special guest co-host Joey for an honest conversation about America's current political climate. From the challenges facing both major parties to the growing frustration among citizens, Mike shares his perspective on what's fueling the divide and outlines practical steps everyday Americans can take to ensure their voices are heard by elected officials. Follow Mike Gatto: Website – www.mikegatto.com Twitter – @MikeGatto Follow Joey: TikTok – @joey_doesit

Political scientists have long argued that legislators believe the public is more conservative than it really is—potentially shaping policies that don't align with what voters actually want. But what if that story is incomplete?In this episode, we talk with University of Chicago political scientist Adam Zelizer, who challenges the conventional wisdom. His new research suggests that politicians may not be systematically biased to the right, but rather exhibit something he calls “midpoint bias”.We unpack why this matters: How do politicians perceive their constituents? Are surveys of public opinion misleading policymakers—or are policymakers just inattentive? And what does this all reveal about the messy relationship between democracy, representation, and what voters actually want?

After a period of relative calm in congressional elections prior to 2006, America has experienced a series of highly competitive, volatile national elections. Since then, at least one of the US House, US Senate, and presidency has flipped party control--often with a large House or Senate seat swing--with the exception of the 2012 election. In Waves of Discontent, Jacob F. H. Smith argues that a pervasive feeling of displeasure in the American public has caused this increase in electoral volatility. Examining the consequences of volatility in congressional elections reveals that political amateurs are more likely to win in wave years than in normal years. Based on this data, Smith presents a new theory about the policy process--the policy doom loop--in which frustration among voters at both the inability of Congress to pass policy and anger at policies that actually do pass results in even more churn in congressional elections. Waves of Discontent offers some suggestions to promote constructive policymaking efforts in Washington to reduce frustration in the electorate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

After a period of relative calm in congressional elections prior to 2006, America has experienced a series of highly competitive, volatile national elections. Since then, at least one of the US House, US Senate, and presidency has flipped party control--often with a large House or Senate seat swing--with the exception of the 2012 election. In Waves of Discontent, Jacob F. H. Smith argues that a pervasive feeling of displeasure in the American public has caused this increase in electoral volatility. Examining the consequences of volatility in congressional elections reveals that political amateurs are more likely to win in wave years than in normal years. Based on this data, Smith presents a new theory about the policy process--the policy doom loop--in which frustration among voters at both the inability of Congress to pass policy and anger at policies that actually do pass results in even more churn in congressional elections. Waves of Discontent offers some suggestions to promote constructive policymaking efforts in Washington to reduce frustration in the electorate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

After a period of relative calm in congressional elections prior to 2006, America has experienced a series of highly competitive, volatile national elections. Since then, at least one of the US House, US Senate, and presidency has flipped party control--often with a large House or Senate seat swing--with the exception of the 2012 election. In Waves of Discontent, Jacob F. H. Smith argues that a pervasive feeling of displeasure in the American public has caused this increase in electoral volatility. Examining the consequences of volatility in congressional elections reveals that political amateurs are more likely to win in wave years than in normal years. Based on this data, Smith presents a new theory about the policy process--the policy doom loop--in which frustration among voters at both the inability of Congress to pass policy and anger at policies that actually do pass results in even more churn in congressional elections. Waves of Discontent offers some suggestions to promote constructive policymaking efforts in Washington to reduce frustration in the electorate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

After a period of relative calm in congressional elections prior to 2006, America has experienced a series of highly competitive, volatile national elections. Since then, at least one of the US House, US Senate, and presidency has flipped party control--often with a large House or Senate seat swing--with the exception of the 2012 election. In Waves of Discontent, Jacob F. H. Smith argues that a pervasive feeling of displeasure in the American public has caused this increase in electoral volatility. Examining the consequences of volatility in congressional elections reveals that political amateurs are more likely to win in wave years than in normal years. Based on this data, Smith presents a new theory about the policy process--the policy doom loop--in which frustration among voters at both the inability of Congress to pass policy and anger at policies that actually do pass results in even more churn in congressional elections. Waves of Discontent offers some suggestions to promote constructive policymaking efforts in Washington to reduce frustration in the electorate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of IADC Speaks, Host Jimmy Ordeneaux (Plauché Maselli Parkerson) chats with Pamela Bracher (American Trucking Associations) and Kellen Mathews (Adams & Reese LLP) about the legislative process. From legislative counseling to lobbying to state policy making, each have distinct experiences on “how the sausage is made.” Join us for an inside look at recent Louisiana bills that have been passed by state legislature and hear about trends that are appearing in different states.

Yvonne Weldon makes history as the first Aboriginal Sydney councillor, bringing the deep legacy of intergenerational trauma into spaces where change is shaped, and as CEO of the Stolen Generations Council, Yvonne transforms past pain into healing and progress, guiding survivors and their families toward a better future.

Whether it's a strength or vulnerability, Donald Trump's erratic nature and unpredictable policy making is something the entire world must deal with. Philip Luck, an economist and former Biden trade official, discusses how Trump's waxing policies are costing America.

Dima Boulad, a designer and problem solver moved by positive impact with more than 14 years of experience. Dima is currently the Head of Design Research for the Dubai Design Lab, which is part of Dubai Future Foundation. Prior to that role she led the Design Research Team also at the Dubai Design Lab. She also worked as Innovation Design Manager for EY and has worked on multiple projects as an independent design consultant. The projects she worked on includes design research for the International Refugee Committee on Information Flow, working with Doctors without Borders in Beirut and being an OpenIDEO community Fellow. She has a Masters in Multimedia and Project Management from IESA in Paris and a Bachelor in Graphic Design from the American University in Beirut.In this episode, Dima reflects on her journey and how her deep interest in design research led her to explore human-centered and participatory design. She emphasizes the importance of truly catering to people's needs and creating meaningful and impactful experiences.She discusses her current work at the Dubai Design Lab, their approach and how their work informs governance and policy making. Last, she talks to the changing role of the designer and what it means for design education.To learn more about Dima's work, follow her on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dimaboulad/?originalSubdomain=aeand check her website:  https://www.dimaboulad.com/Credits:Conception, host and production: Anne-Laure FayardSound design & Post-production: Claudio SilvaMusic & Art Work: Guilhem Tamisier

Clifford Winston, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, joins "Forbes Newsroom" to discuss President Trump's leadership style in his second term, and how that is impacting his policymaking and the American people.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this conversation, I chat with Kristie Kirby, whom I met at Partners in Policy-Making, a leadership program held by the Tennessee Council on Developmental Disability. This is a free 8 month advocacy training program.Timeline of conversation1:00 Introduction2:00 Kristie is a teacher's assistant.2:12 What is SACC?4:00 How does the SACC program work?5:15 Recruiting Volunteers6:00 Upcoming Resource Fair7:00 Exhibitors12:00 The Resource Fair will be at the Vine Branch Church, 2262 Bowser Rd, Cookeville, on June 14 from 10 am to 2 pmYou can reach Kristie Kirby at sacccookeville@gmail.com

Description: New Jersey Partners in Policymaking graduates Fanny Ochoa, Millie Gonzalez, Colleen Roche, Nicky Samuels, and Jenn Boyle discuss their advocacy journeys and the transformative impact of the program. Interviewer: Jaime Zahid, BA, Training & Consultation Specialist at The Boggs Center on Disability and Human Development Click for Full Transcript of Episode 37

How to tell co-workers this meeting could have been an email: “Let's aim to save more time in future discussions by emailing instead”“Let's make sure our next meeting only covers things that need to be discussed”“How about we circle back via email next time?”“This seemed like something we could have worked through on a quick email thread”How do you get more done during the week: don't save yourself for the weekend, do extracurricular things during the week.Boomer dating norms this generation wouldn't understand: Calling on the landlineWaiting for the third date to show serious interestDressing up for even the most casual dateHaving to go through the parents firstThe strict “no kissing on the first date” policyMaking things “official” before exclusivity was assumedConsulting “expert” columns and agony auntsStrict curfews and schedulingSecond Date Update: Indy and Scott actually go on two dates. Why is he ghosting? Was she too needy?

Kamran Abbasi interviews Professor Ashish Jha, Dean of Public Health at Brown University and former COVID-19 pandemic advisor to President Biden. Watch this interview on our YouTube. Trump's second term has touched everything in the US political sphere - and health is no exception. With research funding for medicine and science weathering under Trump's storm of cuts, how can Americans who care about public health and data navigate a course through the swells? Professor Jha discusses how to resist an anti-vaccine resurgence, and comments on revisionist narratives that drive ill-conceived public health policies.   02:20 The MAHA movement and RFK Jnr. 07:40 Does evidence still matter? 13:35 Trump administration is helping China 15:10 Policymaking in Trump's shadow 23:35 Where do universities go from here? 28:48 Censorship, research funding and academic freedom 33:35 Health inequalities within America 36:20 A resurgent anti-vax message 41:24 What Ashish's got wrong about the pandemic response 45:31 When is enough for research data? 47:14 Future hope and how to pushback in smart ways   Reading list: Professor Jha's December 2024 editorial on the Trump admin's plans for American healthcare coverage 

Aubrey Masango speaks to Dr. Kgathane Paulina Mamogobo, a renowned expert in trade and investment policy, as she shares her remarkable journey. With over 15 years of experience and a Doctorate in Business Administration, Dr. Mamogobo has been instrumental in shaping South Africa's economic future.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, we bring you another episode of our series on How Government Can Get Sh*t Done, as host Debbie Cox Bultan sits down with NewDEAL alumnus Jim Townsend. Jim is a former Michigan state legislator now serving as the Director of the Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy, which promotes fact-based legislative oversight as a key to the integrity, transparency, and accountability of the government. Debbie and Jim discuss the false choice between defending institutions that aren't working and tearing the government to the ground and why DOGE and the current political climate might actually create an opportunity to remake the government to be more responsive and effective. Tune in to learn about the United States's very first congressional oversight hearing led by General George Washington and about the specific questions policymakers should be asking to ensure that legislation is actually achieving results for constituents.  IN THIS EPISODE:  • [01:04] Welcome to Jim Townsend and an overview of this episode on local government, public policy, and oversight. • [02:13] What oversight truly is and what good oversight might look like. • [06:16] The very first congressional oversight meeting that happened while George Washington was president. • [08:23] Understanding the foundation of compromise that our democracy is built on. • [10:53] Identifying the opportunity for fundamental reform that exists today. • [15:00] What local lawmakers should consider about oversight on a local level. • [18:21] Policymaking and problem-solving in local government. • [23:06] A current example of oversight that can serve as a model for others. • [26:46] Improving perception around Democratic efforts to improve government rather than demonize it. • [31:14] What originally drove Jim into public service and what keeps him there today.

Why do so many promising solutions in education, medicine, and criminal justice fail to scale up into great policy? And can a new breed of “implementation scientists” crack the code? SOURCES:Patti Chamberlain, senior research scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center.John List, professor of economics at the University of Chicago.Lauren Supplee, former deputy chief operating officer at Child Trends.Dana L. Suskind, professor of surgery at the University of Chicago. RESOURCES:“How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? 12 Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling,” by Omar Al-Ubaydli, John List, Claire Mackevicius, Min Sok Lee, and Dana Suskind.“The Science of Using Science: Towards an Understanding of the Threats to Scaling Experiments,” by Omar Al-Ubaydli, John List, and Dana Suskind (The Field Experiments Website, 2019).“Inconsistent Device Use in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users: Prevalence and Risk Factors,” by K.B.Wiseman and A.D. Warner-Czyz (U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, 2018). EXTRAS:"Why Do Most Ideas Fail to Scale?" by Freakonomics Radio (2022)."The Price of Doing Business with John List," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2022).Child Trends.Oregon Social Learning Center.T.M.W. Center for Early Learning and Public Health.The Field Experiments Website.

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim is joined by Dr. Tevi Troy who servces as a Senior Fellow at the Ronald Reagan Institute. They discuss the intricacies of how the White House makes policy, the evolution and role of various policy councils, and the dynamics of President Trump's second term, particularly focusing on the communication strategies employed by Vice President Vance. Troy emphasizes the importance of a structured policy-making process and the potential pitfalls of proliferating councils that may dilute their effectiveness.

I recently had the privilege of speaking with Dr. Paddy McQueen from Swansea University to discuss a fascinating paper he had authored exploring the ethical dilemmas of supporting talented children. Our conversation explored the philosophical questions about childhood, talent development, and the responsibilities we have as parents, coaches and policy makers. Paddy introduced me to three different views of childhood - 'the sapling view' (seeing childhood merely as preparation for adulthood), 'the fruit view' (seeing childhood as superior to adulthood), and 'the caterpillar view' (seeing childhood and adulthood as distinctly valuable stages). These perspectives create different frameworks for thinking about how we should approach the sport experience for children.We discussed the tension between prioritising intrinsic childhood goods like free play, fun and social connection, versus instrumental goods that prepare children for adult success. The conversation revealed how deeply our cultural mindset about childhood affects the decisions we make in youth sports—often leading to an industrialised approach that sacrifices childhood experiences for potential future achievements that statistically few will attain. My three key takeaways from the conversation:How we view childhood fundamentally shapes our approach to talent development—each perspective (sapling, fruit, or caterpillar) leads to different choices.The sacrifices required for "talent maximisation" often undermine intrinsic childhood goods that cannot be recovered later in life.Playful, enjoyable sporting experiences may actually be more effective for skill development than highly structured, adult-centric training methods.If you found these ideas thought-provoking, I invite you to join my learning group called 'The Guild of Ecological Explorers' by heading to www.thetalentequation.co.uk and clicking on the 'join a learning group' button. There you'll connect with others who are exploring these connections between philosophy, psychology, and sports developmentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-talent-equation-podcast--2186775/support.

In its first two months, the Trump administration has not only laid off thousands of federal workers and shuttered agencies, but it has also purged taxpayer-funded data sets from a swathe of government websites, including data on crime, sexual orientation, gender, education, climate, and global development. Caren Grown, senior fellow in the Center for Sustainable Development at Brookings, joins The Current to explain why the loss of data and the expertise behind its collection will harm good policymaking. Show notes and transcript:  https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-us-government-data-purge-is-a-loss-for-policymaking-and-research/ Follow The Current and all Brookings podcasts on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. Send feedback email to podcasts@brookings.edu.

The govt recently announced significant revisions to the GDP growth rates of 2022-23 and 2023-24, with these numbers drastically different from what was projected. Improving the government's targeting will help in more effective policymaking. Economist Radhika Pandey and Deputy Editor TCA Sharad Raghavan discuss in ThePrint #MacroSutra

In Episode 136 of Raising Kellan, Marsh Naidoo sits down with Lindsey Lind from East Tennessee to discuss their shared experiences in the Partners in PolicyMaking program, a leadership initiative by the Tennessee Council on Developmental Disabilities. Lindsey, a dedicated mother of three, shares her journey navigating the complexities of disability advocacy, particularly focusing on her son who has an extra male chromosome, autism, and ADHD. This episode dives deep into the importance of understanding Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, which protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination in various settings including education and healthcare.Listeners will learn about Axys, a nonprofit organization supporting families affected by sex chromosome variations, and the implications of the Texas vs Becerra lawsuit that threatens to undermine these critical protections for persons with disabilities. Lindsey emphasizes the need for parents to be informed and proactive in advocating for their children's rights within the educational system, including understanding the differences between IEPs and 504 plans.Join us for this enlightening conversation, which will highlight the urgency of advocacy in the face of proposed federal changes and the vital role of community support in ensuring that all children receive the accommodations they need to thrive. Don't miss the upcoming Disability Day on the Hill on March 12th, 2025, where you can make your voice heard!00:00 Introduction03:53 Lindsey Lind origin story09:53 What is keeping Lindsey up at night?18:23 Lindsey: Advocating for school accommodations for kids with disabilities is crucial21:12 Upcoming events

A seasoned investor who ran India's Finance Ministry.This week on The Neon Show, we welcome Jayant Sinha—Investor, Policy Maker, and former Minister of Finance & Civil Aviation.Mr. Sinha shares how the government builds innovative investment solutions for startups and large-scale funding programs for institutions.He played a key role in launching a ₹2,000 crore Fund of Funds, which invests in startups through domestic VCs. He was also instrumental in establishing India's Sovereign Wealth Fund, managing ₹39,000 crore in assets as of 2024.As Civil Aviation Minister, he worked on policies like UDAN to make aviation more inclusive and played a key role in DigiYatra, driving digital transformation in air travel.Mr. Sinha is focused on policies that drive India's economic growth in a climate-conscious way. From research to action, he is working across policy, investment, and technology to shape India's path towards Net Zero.Read Jayant Sinha's Latest book : “India's Green Startups:Entrepreneurs That are Driving Growth” - https://www.amazon.in/India%EF%BF%BDs-Green-Startups-Entrepreneurs-Paperback/dp/9353458633  00:00 - Highlights03:01 – Growing up in a diplomat household05:34 – Working at McKinsey06:48 – The Opportunity cost of a political career08:03 – From Harvard to Hazaribagh09:18 – Exposure to Policymaking & elections11:52 – First electoral win in 201414:37 – Twice chosen as Union Minister15:33 – Arun Jaitley: Also an Excellent Advocate16:55 – India's Sovereign Wealth fund18:17 – Higher Education Financing Agency19:32 – Taxation of Alternative Investment Funds20:17 – Fund of Funds for Domestic VC's21:47 – Aviation Reforms: UDAN & Digiyatra30:26 – Privatization of Air India33:32 – India's vision to lead globally35:42 – India's path to a green future39:31 – The CO₂ blanket effect42:04 – Nuclear fusion as a zero-carbon solution44:24 – Why land will be hotter46:13 – How climate change affects Economy48:57 – India's Net Zero Goals50:04 – $1 Trillion Investment to Finance Net Zero55:00 – Scaling green businesses in India56:26 – Global North's carbon responsibility vs India's emissions1:00:52 – Chronic health effects of pollution on children1:02:07 – What India can learn from Beijing1:06:42 – India's Net Zero Bill & global legislation1:08:08 – Personal connection to The Environmental Cause1:12:47 – Trump's impact on the global green mission1:15:05 – Why India must invest in R&D---Hi, I am your host Siddhartha! I have been an entrepreneur from 2012-2017 building two products AddoDoc and Babygogo. After selling my company to SHEROES, I and my partner Nansi decided to start up again. But we felt unequipped in our skillset in 2018 to build a large company. We had known 0-1 journeys from our startups but lacked the experience of building 1-10 journeys. Hence was born The Neon Show (Earlier 100x Entrepreneur) to learn from founders and investors, the mindset to scale yourself and your company. This quest still keeps us excited even after 5 years and doing 200+ episodes.We welcome you to our journey to understand what goes behind building a super successful company. Every episode is done with a very selfish motive, that I and Nansi should come out as a better entrepreneur and professional after absorbing the learnings.---Check us out on:Website: https://neon.fund/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theneonshoww/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/beneon/Twitter: https://x.com/TheNeonShowwConnect with Siddhartha on:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/siddharthaahluwalia/Twitter: https://x.com/siddharthaa7---This video is for infoSend us a text

Retired lieutenant colonel Alexander Vindman has gained wide notoriety for exposing President Trump's misconduct and for testimony in congress that resulted in the President's first impeachment. Vindman is regarded as a leading policy maker and the preeminent national security strategist on Russia and Ukraine. His latest new work is the book “The Folly of Realism: How the West Deceived Itself About Russia and Betrayed Ukraine.”

Maribeth Watson talks about Partners in PolicyMaking, Morningstar Ministries in Sweetwater TN, and proposed Medicaid budget cuts in 2025 #ProtectmedicaidTimeline: 2:00 Introduction3:00 Maribeth Watson's backstory4:00 Morningstar Ministries8:30 Assessing the needs of your community11: 00 Respite Resources: J⁠oni and Friends⁠ and A Mother's Rest 13:00 Proposed Medicaid Changes16:00 Conclusion and Words of Encouragement!

With populist politicians taking power around the world, policymakers are relying less on research and expertise, as their political narratives prioritise emotion and identity over facts. This may have long-term consequences for global development: not least in the US, where the Agency for International Development has been dismantled, with thousands of staff laid off. Critical development programs have been halted, and the future of US foreign assistance is in limbo. In the latest episode of the collaboration between Yale's Economic Growth Center and VoxDev, host Catherine Cheney asks Rory Stewart, former UK Secretary of State for International Development, Stefan Dercon of the University of Oxford and formerly chief economist of the UK Department for International Development, and Trudi Makhaya, former economic advisor to the President of South Africa, how we can ensure that facts and evidence still matter in policymaking. Check out the full show notes here: https://voxdev.org/topic/institutions-political-economy/development-dialogues-future-evidence-based-policymaking-and

In this episode ofCivil LiberTrees, Catherine discusses the beginning of Donald Trump's presidency with Andrew Eskin, Esq. who has decades of experience in the federal government and teaches Policymaking at Stanford in Washington. This episode reviews President Trump's recent flurry of executive orders as well as Elon Musk's role in the new administration. Mr. Eskin provides an insightful perspective on what President Trump has already done, cutting through the noise to discern the ways his presidency may clash with other Washington powers and what changes we can expect in the next few months.

Estás escuchando #JUNTOSRadio ¿A qué se le conoce como trastorno del espectro autista? ¿Cuáles son las señales que como mamá, papá o cuidador podemos identificar? ¿Con quién debo de acudir? Miriam Galán, fundadora de Azul Esperanza, asociación de apoyo para Autismo, Neurodesarrollo y trastorno del aprendizaje, nos responde a estas y otras preguntas.   Sobre nuestra invitada:   Miriam Galán, Nacío y crecío en la ciudad de México mayor de 4 hermanos se mudó a EE.UU. en 2008.   Madre de dos niños excepcionales con autismo, fundadora de Azul Esperanza, una iniciativa que aumenta la concientización sobre el autismo y discapacidades del desarrollo, para la comunidad latina a través de redes sociales, conferencias y talleres informativos y como la comunidad puede acceder a recursos.   Graduada de PLTI ( Parent Leadership Training Institute en Kansas City)   Así cómo de Parents in Policymaking de MODDC (Missouri development Disability  Council).   En 2023 fue galardonada con el premio Changemaker 2023 por Revolución educativa.    El pasado Abril, recibió el premio Nacional como Special education Advocate 2024 por National Parents Union.   Recursos informativos en español    Medline Plus  https://medlineplus.gov/spanish/ency/article/001526.htm#:~:text=El%20trastorno%20del%20espectro%20autista,sociales%20y%20de%20comunicaci%C3%B3n%20normales.    Nacional Institute of Mental Health  https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/espanol/trastornos-del-espectro-autista   Facebook: @juntosKS     Instagram: juntos_ks     YouTube: Juntos KS   Twitter: @juntosKS     Página web: http://juntosks.org         Suscríbete en cualquiera de nuestras plataformas de Podcast: Podbean, Spotify, Amazon Music y Apple Podcast - Juntos Radio          Centro JUNTOS Para Mejorar La Salud Latina     4125 Rainbow Blvd. M.S. 1076,     Kansas City, KS 66160     Este programa tiene fines educativos y no reemplaza el consejo médico profesional. Para diagnósticos o tratamientos, consulte a su médico. Las opiniones expresadas por los invitados son personales y no podrían reflejar las de este podcast.  No tenemos los derechos de autor de la música que aparece en este video. Todos los derechos de la música pertenecen a sus respectivos creadores.   

Adrian Deveny, former Director of Energy and Environmental Policy for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, was a key architect of the Biden-era climate policy agenda, including the landmark Inflation Reduction Act. In this conversation, we explore Adrian's perspective on what to expect from Washington, D.C., in the years ahead, as the federal government transitions to Republican control of the executive branch and both chambers of Congress.We discuss the likely fate of the climate and clean energy provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act over the next couple of years and whether there are viable pathways for new clean energy policy in the near term. Given the ambitious policies rolled out in recent years, Adrian also shares insights on the "unfinished business" he sees as critical. Spoiler alert: he believes we need to more than double our policy efforts to meet U.S. emissions targets. In this episode, we cover: [3:36] Adrian's background and  journey in the Senate[8:26] Republican trifecta's impact on climate policy[11:47] Regulatory challenges, including Supreme Court rulings[17:48] Challenges in EPA funding and appropriations[19:53] Defending clean energy tax credits under the IRA[24:08] IRA's impact on manufacturing and the EV supply chain[31:48] Bipartisan opportunities in geothermal, nuclear, and defense projects[45:28] Debates on permitting reform for energy projects[52:00] Future clean energy growth and market forces[55:12] Adrian's focus on advancing federal climate policyRecommended listening: Crafting Landmark Climate Legislation Russel Kenneth DeGraffEpisode recorded on Nov 20, 2024 (Published on Jan 13, 2025) Enjoyed this episode? Please leave us a review! Share feedback or suggest future topics and guests at info@mcj.vc.Connect with MCJ:Cody Simms on LinkedInVisit mcj.vcSubscribe to the MCJ Newsletter*Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant

This episode features audio from an in-person roundtable discussion at the 2024 Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Fall Research Conference. The roundtable focused on the five-year anniversary of The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act and a recent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on federal agencies' ability to assess their capacity to collect and use evidence. The panelists also discussed what needs to happen next to further strengthen the use of evidence in the federal government. The roundtable featured remarks from Erika Rissi, Nick Hart, Melinda Buntin, Rachel Snyderman, and Paul Decker. Rissi is the chief evaluation officer of the National Science Foundation, where she is also the Head of its Evaluation and Assessment Capability Section. Hart is the president and CEO of the Data Foundation. Buntin is a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Carey Business School. Snyderman is the managing director of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Economic Policy Program. Decker is the president and chief executive officer of Mathematica. You can also read a short blog by Decker summarizing key themes from the roundtable here: https://mathematica.org/blogs/advancing-and-enhancing-evidence-based-policymaking Listen to a past episode of On the Evidence featuring a discussion about the five-year anniversary of the Evidence Act with experts from government, think tanks, research organizations, and academia: https://mathematica.org/blogs/building-on-the-evidence-act-to-increase-the-positive-impact-of-federal-policymaking Listen to a past episode of On the Evidence featuring Robert Shea, an expert on performance improvement in government who served on the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, a group whose recommendations informed the Evidence Act: https://mathematica.org/blogs/robert-shea-on-the-federal-governments-progress-in-using-evidence-to-improve-programs-and-policies

Lawfare Senior Editor Eugenia Lostri sat down with Winnona DeSombre Bernsen, nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council and founder of the hacker conference DistrictCon, and Nina Alli, Executive Director of the Biohacking Village, to talk about their recent report, “It Takes a Village: Spotlighting Practitioner Driven-Cybersecurity Successes and Future Opportunities.” The report collects the insights of seven cybersecurity villages and outlines the value they can bring to security research and how policymakers can benefit from engaging with them.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Michael talks with former National Counterterrorism Center Director Christy Abizaid, who shares her extensive experiences in the intelligence community. She discusses the evolution of her career from intelligence analyst to policymaker and leader in counterterrorism, emphasizing the importance of integrity, objectivity, and the need for intelligence officials to accurately inform policy. Abizaid also highlights the challenges of navigating crises, the significance of being present in decision-making rooms, and the lessons learned from her unique perspective on both sides of the intelligence and policy divide.