Podcasts about safeguards

Investigative reporter and film maker Greg Palast exposes the tricks that could steal your vote - From voter purges to new suppression tactics, SaveYourVote.org reveals what's happening and gives Americans a way to fight back.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, we put legal and procedural safeguards in place, so a corrupt president couldn't direct his Department of Justice to vindictively or selectively or otherwise unlawfully go after his perceived enemies. Despite this, Donald Trump has told the Department of Justice to revive the reflecting pool case against Olympian David Hearn. Trump has ripped through every safeguard in his determination to hurt people, persecute his critics, and prosecute his perceived foes.Glenn reviews some of the Watergate safeguards that were put in place, and explains how Trump violates them all.Find Glenn on Substack: glenkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Flock Introduces New Safeguards for Camera System After Backlash and Criticism (0:45) Trump Takes Ballroom Appeal to the Supreme Court (~16:03) Trump, Hegseth, and Others Comment on Status of USS Lincoln (~20:36) Mangione Pleads Guilty, But Doesn't Take Plea Agreement. What Does This Mean for Double Jeopardy? (~32:09) Quick Hitters (~41:27) Critical Thinking Segment (~45:09) ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  Scammers are everywhere! But they can't harm you, if they can't find you! Use code JORDAN at https://incogni.com/jordan and get 60% off an annual plan! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, we put legal and procedural safeguards in place, so a corrupt president couldn't direct his Department of Justice to vindictively or selectively or otherwise unlawfully go after his perceived enemies. Despite this, Donald Trump has told the Department of Justice to revive the reflecting pool case against Olympian David Hearn. Trump has ripped through every safeguard in his determination to hurt people, persecute his critics, and prosecute his perceived foes.Glenn reviews some of the Watergate safeguards that were put in place, and explains how Trump violates them all.Find Glenn on Substack: glenkirschner.substack.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A huge Friday lineup with C-Bass and Ross stepping in to cover for Nat and Joel! Things got hilariously uncomfortable early on as the team dove deep into groin injuries and getting hit in the "goolies," with C-Bass even claiming she's ready to patent a brand-new protective invention. Meanwhile, pop culture fans got excited over news that Netflix's explosive new documentary, Untold: Raygun: Breaking Badly, is dropping soon to revisit the Olympic breakdancing saga.. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Eamon Dillon, Assistant Editor of the Sunday World

Subscribe to LMSU's Patreon for some unsolicited advice to the next Victorian Energy Minister! This week our Bonus episode includes Frankie, Luke and Tennant providing some free (unsolicited) advice to whomsoever occupies the hotseat as Victorian Minister for Climate Change and Energy following this year's state election. Run, don't walk, over to www.letmesumup.net and subscribe to our Patreon to hear which hills your intrepid hosts think are are worth dying on. — This week your intrepid hosts have their eyes on Canberra for the entree and main course, and begin with a substantial speech from Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen at the National Press Club. Lots to digest in here, but the big ticket was the minister's announcement to expand the Small Scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES) to include deemed incentives for 5 years' generation until 2030 of solar PV systems up to 1 MW, up from 100 kW. This idea has been doing the rounds for years and we reckon, it's an idea whose time has well and truly come! Also packed into the speech was some more meat-on-bones for data centre energy requirements in the forthcoming National Standards - but lots more to come on that front! Our main course Summerupperers, this is the kind of episode your intrepid hosts were born for! This week we chow down on some classic LMSU content. That's right, we speak of the government's just-released 2026-27 Safeguard Mechanism Review consultation paper. Adding to our collection of Safeguard-related episodes, we go long on this one! Much anticipated and promised since 2023, this review is looking at how effective the current settings are in delivering the government's 2030 emissions target, and whether adjustments are needed, as well as what the post-2030 settings should be. In the mix: decline rates! Financial support! To ACCU or not to ACCU! Thresholds! Cost of containment! And dare we say it, a little border carbon adjustment, just adjusting carbon at the border? Let's make BoCA a thing, people! One more things Tennant's One More Thing is: Research showing US Permian Basin methane leakage was nearly halved from 2019 to 2023. Effort, and regulation, make a difference!  Frankie's One More Thing is: a PSA for some soon-to-be-published research from her day job at Investor Group on Climate Change on proposed reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism! The report will be launched in Canberra early next week, so keep your eyes peeled here. Luke's One More Thing is: a rant about some seriously shortsighted and retrograde comments made by the Federal Opposition, committing to replace the National Construction Code with a basic housing standard based on the 1988 building code, before things like energy efficiency provisions were added. Where to start on this particular head scratcher? Hard to imagine a parliamentarian arguing for higher energy bills for vulnerable households, but these are topsy turvy times we live in.  And that's it for now, Summerupperers. There is now a one-stop-shop for all your LMSU needs: head to letmesumup.net to support us on Patreon, procure merch, find back episodes, and leave us a voicemail!

When the Title Changes but the Authority Doesn't: Family Business Succession with Paul Edelman Most family business succession plans fail not because the legal structure is wrong, but because authority never actually moves. In this episode of Wealth Actually, Frazer Rice talks with Paul Edelman, PhD of Edelman & Associates about how to tell the difference between a real handoff and a cosmetic one. Edelman unbundles succession into six separate questions, explains the three behavioral tells that reveal who is really in charge, draws a hard line between a legitimate safeguard and an open-ended veto, and makes the case that agreement from a family is not the same thing as ownership of a decision. https://youtu.be/p2KCsftvM74 Key Takeaways Succession is not one decision — it is at least six. Who gets the economic benefit of ownership, who votes the shares, who appoints and removes directors, who runs operations, who receives what information, and who retains informal influence after formal authority ends. Watch behavior, not titles. Compensation changes and org charts are easy to read and easy to fake. How decisions actually get made — and whether they get reversed — is the real signal. Three tells that authority hasn't moved: the next management layer still routes real decisions to the founder; the successor has never had a disputed call stand; and in a genuine crisis, the founder is the one who walks into the room. Speed is not the test. A five-year transition can be disciplined development; a six-month transition can be denial with a deadline. The test is whether milestones and readiness criteria are observable and stable, or whether the goalposts keep moving. “Not ready” is not a concern — it is a placeholder. If a founder cannot restate it in specific, testable terms, the obstacle is emotional rather than substantive, and it needs a different path. Advisor impatience often masquerades as clarity. When you catch yourself thinking “why can't they just do this,” ask whose timeline is actually being served — the family's, or your need to close the file. A safeguard is bounded; a veto is not. Reserve specific extraordinary decisions with defined scope, thresholds, triggers, evidence, and duration. “The successor is in charge unless the founder feels uncomfortable” is an undefined operational veto. Agreement is not ownership. A family can be outvoted and formally agree while owning nothing. Ownership comes from having weighed the trade-offs and the implications of each option in the room. Timestamps [00:00] Cold open — why “he's just not ready” is untestable [01:05] Welcome: founders at the sell-or-transfer crossroads [01:48] Unbundling succession into six separate questions [02:23] Running a diagnostic on where the founder actually is [03:00] Watch behavior, not titles — and what the CFO tells you [04:00] Decision reversals and the second-guessing test [05:00] The crisis test: who owns the emergency [05:36] Fast handoff vs. staged succession and prolonged ambiguity [06:10] Milestones that show it's working — and goalposts that keep moving [08:00] Inside vs. outside successors and family dynamics [08:54] Competing heirs and the outside CEO as bridge or avoidance [09:47] Reading resistance: making “not ready” addressable [11:10] The advisory ecosystem's frustration with stalled progress [12:16] Whose timeline is being served? [13:31] Push, pause, or reframe — the art and science of advising [15:00] When to change the forum, the decision rights, or bring in a facilitator [15:36] Safeguards vs. vetoes and the trap doors founders build [17:37] Board composition: independence vs. familiarity [20:00] Restructuring boards to create seats for new expertise [20:54] Income-dependent family members vs. growth-minded owners [21:34] Agreement is not ownership: dividends vs. reinvestment [23:31] Matching complexity to the outcomes you need [25:00] Communicating decisions to people who weren't in the room [25:26] How to reach Paul Edelman [25:46] The Edelman–Shenkman trilogy for estate planning attorneys [29:19] Close Pull Quotes “If the CFO briefs the new successor CEO and then confirms things with Dad, then the org chart is not telling the real story.” — Paul Edelman “To have authority when things are going well is fine. But the person who owns the crisis is the one who's really owning the leadership.” — Paul Edelman “A safeguard should be limited, explicit, and connected to some extraordinary risk. A veto is an ongoing ability to stop or reverse any old ordinary decision.” — Paul Edelman “Just because there's an agreement in name doesn't mean there's ownership of the decision.” — Paul Edelman About the Guest Paul Edelman, PhD is a coach, facilitator, and mentor at Edelman & Associates, where he works with family enterprise and family office leaders on decisions that cannot be delegated. He holds a PhD in developmental psychology from Harvard University and a BS in physics from MIT, and serves as faculty at The UHNW Institute and the Bertarelli Institute for Family Entrepreneurship at Babson College. Contact Paul Edelman Email: paul@edelmancoaching.com Website: edelmancoaching.com (contact form on site) LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/pauledelman The Edelman & Shenkman Trilogy Paul and Martin M. “Marty” Shenkman, CPA, MBA, JD, PFS, AEP (Distinguished), of Shenkman Tietz, have written a three-part series aimed at estate planning attorneys: Simplicity and its trade-offs — When Clients Ask for a Simple Estate Plan, WealthManagement.com / Trusts & Estates, July 8, 2026. The language of estate planning conversations — published in Steve Leimberg's LISI Estate Planning Newsletter (subscriber archive). Beneficiary education — forthcoming October 2026, expected in Estate Planning. Paul's running author archive: wealthmanagement.com/author/paul-edelman More from Paul Edelman Approval Is Not Ownership: Helping Family Office Investment Decisions Hold Under Pressure — Family Wealth Report, July 1, 2026 How Families Can Override Emotions to Make Better Judgments — Family Business Magazine, April 9, 2026 Lessons For Families And Their Advisors From A Hit TV Series — Family Wealth Report, February 24, 2026 Stronger Family Bonds and Better Strategic Decisions — FFI Practitioner, January 20, 2026 Frequently Asked Questions What are the six questions a family business succession decision should be broken into?Who receives the economic benefit of ownership; who votes the shares; who appoints and removes directors; who runs the company operationally; who receives what information; and who continues to hold influence after formal authority ends. Bundling these into a single “handoff” decision is what creates ambiguity. How can you tell whether authority has really transferred to a successor?Watch three behaviors. First, where the next management layer goes for real decisions — employees are excellent at reading where power actually lives. Second, whether the successor has ever made a call the founder disagreed with and had it stand. Third, the crisis test: when a covenant breaks or a key employee leaves, who walks into the room and who gets briefed afterward. Is a fast succession better than a gradual one?Speed itself is not the test. A five-year transition can represent disciplined development, and a six-month transition can be avoidance followed by an arbitrary deadline. What matters is whether responsibility moves against observable milestones, whether the successor learns from outcomes instead of being rescued, and whether readiness criteria stay fixed rather than shifting each time the successor advances. What is the difference between a safeguard and a veto?A safeguard is limited, explicit, and tied to extraordinary risk — selling the company, debt above a threshold, issuing new equity, changing core strategy, or related-party transactions — with defined scope, thresholds, process, duration, trigger, evidence, and who decides. A veto is an ongoing ability to stop or reverse ordinary decisions. If the founder can intervene whenever they feel uncomfortable, that is an undefined operational veto. How should advisors handle their own frustration with a stalled family?Notice that impatience often feels like clarity. When you think “I see exactly what they need to do, why can't they just do it,” that is often the moment to slow down and ask whose timeline is being served — whether the ambiguity is genuinely damaging the company, or whether the recommendation mainly closes the case and relieves the advisor's discomfort with uncertainty. What makes an independent director genuinely independent in a family company?The ability to exercise business judgment and fiduciary duty free from undue family influence or loyalty to a particular branch. A director who is the founder's golfing buddy or tied to one family faction will struggle to deliver the value independence is supposed to provide. Why isn't agreement good enough?Because agreement in name is not ownership. A family branch can be outvoted, formally accept the outcome, and still feel no responsibility for it. Ownership comes from working through the trade-offs — what each option makes better and worse — so participants can say they helped weigh the considerations even if the result was not their first choice. Full Transcript [00:00] Paul Edelman: The resistance often takes the form of some sort of concern that is stated like, for example, the most general concern that people will say is, well, he or she, the likely successor, is just not ready. But that phrase “not ready” is at a very high level of generality. It's not specific enough to be testable or to be capable of being satisfied. So the challenge is to work with the founder to help them express their concern in terms that are actually addressable. [00:36] Announcer: Welcome back to the Wealth Actually podcast, the show that features experts, entrepreneurs, and commentators that will give you the right knowledge, planning, and guidance so you can preserve your assets and enjoy your wealth. Learn more and subscribe today at wealthactually.com. This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is neither investment, legal, nor tax advice and does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guests. [01:05] Frazer Rice: Welcome aboard, Paul. [01:07] Paul Edelman: Thanks, Frazer. Looking forward to our conversation. [01:09] Frazer Rice: Well, it's important because I deal with a bunch of founders and a bunch of other business owners, families, et cetera, that are trying to make sense out of the concept of passing along the business either to the next generation or deciding to sell it, and all sorts of parts of that tough crossroads that everybody has to go through at some point. And that's really the crux of your practice — to help people with those conversations. [01:34] Paul Edelman: Yes. [01:35] Frazer Rice: So when we're thinking about that and kind of unbundling the decision to pass the business along, when a family wants to talk about that, what are the separate parts of that decision that need to be contemplated? [01:48] Paul Edelman: Well, I see at least six different questions that need to be separated. One is who receives the economic benefit of ownership in the company. Another is who gets to vote the shares. And a third is who appoints and removes the directors. Then there's who runs the company from an operational standpoint, and who receives what information. And then, who continues to have influence even though they may no longer have formal authority. [02:23] Frazer Rice: So once you get into the… it always seems to me to be tough to sort of say, okay, here are six things that have to happen, and that's a lot for somebody to digest in the course of one or two meetings and get the buy-in from all the different constituencies that are interested in what the business is up to. How do you run a diagnostic to understand where a founder is — or generation one — in their own head space, and understanding what control being passed on looks like in summary form on those six different aspects that you brought up? [03:00] Paul Edelman: I think the key thing is to watch behavior more than titles. People often pay a lot of attention to when the titles have shifted or compensation shifts, things like that. But they pay less attention to how decisions are being made and whether those decisions get reversed. So when the title has moved but the authority hasn't moved, you tend to see three different things. First of all, you can see something going on at the next level down in management — not with the founder and successor per se, but with the other executives. You can ask yourself, who do they go to for the real decisions? If the CFO briefs the new successor CEO and then confirms things with Dad, then the org chart is not telling the real story. [04:00] Paul Edelman: Employees are excellent at reading where the actual power lives, because they can't afford to be wrong about that sort of thing. So that's one clue. Another is to look at decision reversals, or what is more commonly called second-guessing. You want to look for whether the successor has made a call that the founder disagreed with. And if so, did it stand, or did it get reversed? If the company is two years into succession and that's never happened, it's possible that the successor is pre-clearing everything with the former CEO and only making decisions that they know will be approved. So in that case, it's not real authority. And a third situation is what you could call a crisis test. [05:00] Paul Edelman: So when something genuinely bad happens — there's a breach of a covenant, or a key employee departs, or a lawsuit — the question is, who do people go to? Who walks into the boardroom and into the decision-making situation, and who ends up getting briefed afterwards? To have authority when things are going well is fine, but the person who owns the crisis is the one who's really owning the leadership, in a sense. [05:36] Frazer Rice: So one of the avenues that I think is interesting, that I read in your materials ahead of time, was the idea that a quick succession oftentimes — and maybe not often, but can be — a better avenue in terms of moving the succession forward, as opposed to having a staged succession where a long period of ruminating and decision-making often perpetuates ambiguity, or even confusion, amongst different constituencies both managerially and ownership-wise. [06:10] Paul Edelman: Speed itself is not the test. You could have a five-year transition that represents disciplined development of the successor, and you could also have a six-month transition that essentially is a denial of what needs to happen, followed by some kind of a deadline. But you certainly don't want to allow things to drift. If the transition is proceeding gradually, you can tell it's working if responsibility and authority are moving according to observable milestones. So the successor is making increasingly consequential decisions. They're learning from the outcomes rather than being rescued by the founder or the prior leader from their mistakes. [07:01] Paul Edelman: They're developing important relationships and they're becoming someone that others rely on. The criteria for readiness also should become clearer over time, and the founder's involvement should change in ways that are recognizable. So that's the ideal. But sometimes a gradual transition represents avoidance, and in those cases you see criteria — sometimes people refer to them as the goalposts — that keep moving. And decisions are repeatedly returned to the founder. Also, each step that the successor takes toward greater authority may be followed by a new reason why the founder feels that they're not ready. So the question that can be asked is: what are the capabilities that the successor is developing, and what specific evidence would demonstrate that? [08:00] Frazer Rice: When you're diagnosing what those capabilities are, as part of that diagnosis, if the successor is inside the family versus outside the family, how do you diagnose whether that is a positive or a negative, in addition to maybe the harder skill sets that are being dealt with? [08:29] Paul Edelman: If the successor is from inside or outside the family, I would say that many of the capabilities needed for leadership are the same. [08:40] Frazer Rice: Yeah, I was going to say — if you run into situations where a family member is capable skill-wise, but there are dynamics issues that have prevented their succession to the throne, essentially. [08:54] Paul Edelman: Sometimes there may be a situation in which you have more than one potential successor and they're in competition with one another, and the family is reluctant to declare a winner. And so one move that can be made in that situation is to essentially bypass the decision by going to the outside to bring in someone. It could be a kind of conflict avoidance mechanism. On the other hand, if no successor is really ready, then sometimes going to the outside can be an interim move. So some companies will hire an external candidate for CEO with the expectation that part of the responsibility will be to develop one of the family members who ultimately may take over. [09:47] Frazer Rice: And so part of your methodology is to read resistance in the room and understand where those pain points are. How does a founder, or generation one, or the successive generations understand what the resistance is? And how do you help them overcome that? [10:02] Paul Edelman: The resistance often takes the form of some sort of concern that is stated like — for example, the most general concern that people say is, well, he or she, the likely successor, is just not ready. But that phrase “not ready” is at a very high level of generality. It's not specific enough to be testable or to be capable of being satisfied. So the challenge is to work with the founder to help them express their concern in terms that are actually addressable. If you try to do that and you're unable to, that's an indication that the concern is less about something specific and addressable, and more about some unpleasant feelings that the founder is experiencing — and that implies a different path for how to address those, or what needs to be done. [11:10] Frazer Rice: For those of us in, let's call it the advisory ecosystem — that can be the wealth manager, or the lawyer, or the accountant, the people who help guide the technical succession issues, whether it's tax planning or trusts and estates or even just the corporate handoff — oftentimes we're presented with situations that just get muddled, and we look at lack of progress with frustration. How does an advisor deal with that, when the instinct and in a sense the business model is to try to push, to get resolution and to get progress on these types of issues? [12:16] Paul Edelman: The signal that I watch for is what that impatience feels like to the advisor. Sometimes it feels like clarity. The advisor says to himself, oh, I see exactly what they need to do — why can't they just do this? And in my experience, that's often the moment when it's helpful for the advisor to slow down. Not because the family should be allowed to delay indefinitely, but because the advisor's own need for resolution may begin to shape what they say and do, and the advice that they give. [13:00] Paul Edelman: One useful check that advisors can use for themselves is to ask whose timeline is being served. There may be a genuine business reason to act — it may be, for example, that the continued ambiguity is hurting the company, or weakening the successor, or leaving employees unsure about who's in charge. But I would also ask myself, and other advisors can ask themselves, whether their recommendation is mainly to help them close the case, or to demonstrate progress, or to relieve their own discomfort with uncertainty. [13:31] Frazer Rice: The concept of — this is really, I guess, the mix of art and science of advising — between push versus pause versus a total restructure or a reframing of the conversation. There's an intersection of, you have to have the technicals down, but then experience in dealing with personalities, experience with dealing with the specific family and situation, and guiding that. [14:15] Frazer Rice: I imagine occasionally you run into situations where, at the intersection between the advisors and the family, they feel stuck. And so then the concept of getting them unstuck — yet there is resistance to maybe bringing in a facilitator to help grease the skids and get the conversation moving again. How do you help that reframing discussion? [14:40] Paul Edelman: I guess the question I would ask is, where do things stand? Has a decision actually been made, or is the obstacle substantive, or is it the process? So when a decision has been reached through a legitimate process and what you see is some sort of executional drag or discomfort, those are the situations where I think it's helpful to hold the boundary. You can acknowledge whatever feelings may be slowing things down, but there's not a need to reopen the decision. [14:55] Paul Edelman: On the other hand, if the discomfort that people are feeling suggests that there's some sort of important concern that hasn't yet been understood, then that's where I would pause. And that pause can involve useful work. You can ask people, what is it you're trying to protect? What are the consequences that you fear? What would need to be true for proceeding to feel responsible rather than reckless? And then there are times when it makes sense to restructure or to add structure. So for example, the choices are pretty clear, but the same conversation keeps recurring and producing the same result. In that case, you want to think in terms of either changing the forum, or clarifying the decision rights, or maybe dividing the issue into smaller decisions, or even bringing someone in to help structure the conversation, like a third-party facilitator. [15:36] Frazer Rice: The handoff ultimately — when the founder, or generation one, has gotten to the point where they're ready to move things along to the next set of operators, the next set of owners — and at the same time, in order to feel safe, they've created some safeguards, or let's call it some trap doors or back doors, to be able to help influence decisions if they feel like things are going in a different direction. How do you think about it so that they don't turn into pain points — maybe regret that turns into a veto power that stymies the succession, even if it's already been decided and put in motion? [16:21] Paul Edelman: Well, I think you put your finger on it. There's a key distinction to be made here between a safeguard and a veto. A safeguard should be limited, explicit, and connected to some extraordinary risk, whereas a veto is kind of an ongoing ability to stop or reverse any old ordinary decision. So when it comes to safeguards, a family might reserve certain kinds of decisions — like selling the company, or taking on debt above a certain level, or issuing new equity, or changing the basic business strategy, or entering into a transaction with a family member. [16:59] Paul Edelman: Those kinds of things can be specified, and the scope, the threshold, the decision process and the duration of the safeguard should be clear — as well as who can invoke that protection, what evidence is required, and who decides whether the trigger has occurred, and so on. So the problems arise when the arrangement is essentially one in which the successor is in charge unless the founder feels uncomfortable. If the founder is allowed to intervene anytime they feel uncomfortable, as opposed to for these specific kinds of reasons, then you're dealing with more of an undefined operational veto. [17:37] Frazer Rice: To that end — boards of directors related to these companies, whether they're private or public, but we're really talking about private in most cases. The constitution of those boards: how involved do you get in that? And what is the importance of independence versus familiarity versus family member input, to act as a go-between in many ways between founder, the operational executives, and then ultimately the owners? [18:07] Paul Edelman: Well, in order to really add value — the kind of value that independent directors can potentially offer to a company — they need to be adequately independent. That is to say, they need to be able to exercise their sound business judgment and carry out their fiduciary responsibilities in a way that is free from undue influence by other kinds of family considerations, and potentially loyalty to particular family members. So I think in those cases where a so-called independent board member is actually a golfing buddy of the CEO or the founder, or has a tie to one particular family member or branch of the family, it may be harder for them to bring the full value that an independent director can bring. [18:55] Paul Edelman: Then of course, another reason why companies bring in independent directors is because they have some additional expertise that the current board members or family members lack. So for example, a colleague and I are working with a company right now where the core business has been subject to commoditization, and they've made a strategic decision to diversify. But in order to diversify, they need to bring in people with new expertise, particularly in the line of business that they want to move into. In order to do that, they need to create some space in their board or boards of directors — they have several different kinds of boards. And as part of this, we were brought in to take a look at those existing boards and help them think about how to restructure in a way that could create some open seats while minimizing the displacement of people who are currently board members, including family members who are board members, who may not feel too positively about losing their board seat. [20:54] Frazer Rice: Related to board seats, but more specifically to family ownership — the concept of family members who rely on the family business for income, versus maybe other parts of the family that are looking at the business and thinking of growing the valuation or innovating with the business, that type of thing. With the tension between those two different components, how do you solve for that and have that conversation stay productive, when I imagine it can get emotional very quickly? [21:34] Paul Edelman: This is where a third-party facilitator can be helpful to slow things down. When things begin to get heated, it's often helpful to have a neutral or impartial person present who can help to reduce the heat in the conversations. There are a number of things in particular that can be done under those circumstances. First of all, anytime there are these kinds of tough decisions, there's never a single right answer. There's always trade-offs involved. And some boards work their way through these things by voting. I'm dealing with a situation right now where some members of the family were outvoted. At the end of that vote, they say, okay, we now have an agreement, we're going to move forward with this. But just because there's an agreement in name doesn't mean there's ownership of the decision. [22:34] Paul Edelman: So in order to create ownership, I think it is helpful to have the difficult conversations and to consider the implications of going one way versus another. If we were to distribute all this money in the form of dividends, what would be the benefits of that, and what would be the costs associated with that? And on the other hand, if we were to plow it all back into growth of the business, what's the upside and downside of that? Only by considering different options and the implications of each can the family ultimately arrive at a decision where people feel like, well, I may not have agreed to this, but I was part of the discussion, I was part of the process of weighing the different considerations, and I'm willing to buy into this. In other words, I feel some ownership for this decision. [23:31] Frazer Rice: As we start to wind down here, an interesting concept is what should all the constituencies come away with from the decision-making process. And as a follow-up to that is simplicity versus complexity of the solution. How do you manage that so that you take care of the needs of the business and the needs for structuring, with the need for simplicity, so that everyone who comes away from the discussion and the decision-making understands what's been put in place? [24:06] Paul Edelman: As far as the solution itself goes, the level of complexity should match what's required to accomplish the desired outcomes. So complexity for its own sake is not useful. But when you're trying to accomplish more than one thing at a time, it may require a more complex approach to the solution. So that's on the solution side. Now the other side of it has to do with communication. How do you share what's been decided with other people, especially people who haven't been in the room? And I think that the best way to do that is to try to explain clearly what was the context of the situation in which the need to make this decision arose; what were the desired outcomes that the decision makers were trying to produce, what were they trying to accomplish; and the flip side of that is what were they trying to avoid, or what were they trying to protect. [25:00] Paul Edelman: When you share all of that, the rationale for the decision becomes more understandable, and also you have a better case for justifying any complexity that's part of the decision. As far as complexity goes, of course, you want to use the simplest, most straightforward language to describe what you've come up with. But I think the key thing to getting buy-in is to make sure that the rationale is clear, and people understand that there was a thoughtful and systematic process behind it. [25:26] Frazer Rice: Really good stuff. Paul, how do people find you to hear more about what you're up to? [25:32] Paul Edelman: My website is edelmancoaching.com. So people can go to edelmancoaching.com, read more about the work that I do, and there's a contact form there. Or people can simply email paul@edelmancoaching.com. [25:46] Frazer Rice: Just to — because you're being very humble — you have a couple of articles coming out with Marty Shenkman, where the intersection of probably the trust and estate planning and the actual, let's say, getting the business ready for the next generation, whatever form that takes, is probably front and center there. How would people find that? [26:06] Paul Edelman: So we've written three articles recently, kind of a trilogy, and they're each going to be carried in different places. Two have already come out, and one is due to come out. These are aimed primarily at estate planning attorneys. But the first one is on when the client asks for a simple estate plan. And this relates a little bit to what you were describing, in a different domain — the domain of trusts and estate plans and so on. But the point that we make is that the client's request for simplicity is understandable, and ideally the attorney will validate that. But at the same time, along with the request for simplicity goes potentially some compromises, because when you have multiple desired outcomes, it may take more of a complex structure to achieve those outcomes. So the role of the planner is not to introduce complexity for its own sake, but to make clear to the client [27:06] Paul Edelman: what trade-offs they'd be making if they went with a simpler plan, and what additional protections they can get by considering a more complicated one. Then the second piece is on the use of language in these estate planning conversations. And again, it relates to this concept we were talking about a minute ago, of the difference between agreement and ownership. Some clients are willing to agree to whatever the attorney says. If you say to them, “Well, I think this is the best plan for you,” they say, “Fine, where do I sign?” But the goal, ideally, is more than just agreement. It's ownership. Because in the absence of ownership — and by ownership, I mean that the client understands the trade-offs that are being made, they feel that they had agency in the process of making those trade-offs — [28:06] Paul Edelman: and ultimately, if something doesn't work out as well as hoped, people will not go back and point a finger at the planner and say, “You did this, how could you do this?” or something like that, but rather, “This was a collaborative effort. You made clear what the choices were, and we made them together.” So that piece talks about language, and how, for example, there's a difference between saying to a client “you should do this,” and speaking to them in terms of what they can do. [28:42] Frazer Rice: And then the third piece — when's that coming out? [28:46] Paul Edelman: The third piece is on beneficiary education, and that one will come out in October. And so the first piece came out in a publication called Wealth Management. The second piece came out in a newsletter that's published by, I think it's LISI. And the piece that's coming out in October is, I think, being published in a magazine or a journal, something like Estate Planning. [29:19] Frazer Rice: They're everywhere. So, terrific. Well, Paul, thanks for being on. I'll put all that in the show notes, and look forward to staying in touch. [29:26] Paul Edelman: Thanks very much, Frazer. [29:28] Announcer: This podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes. It is neither investment, legal, nor tax advice, and does not represent the opinions of the employers of the host or guests. Additional Links Mark Tepsich of Family Governance https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Actually-Intelligent-Decision-Making-1-ebook/dp/B07FPQJJQT/

Nathan reports from two weeks in China, including WAIC in Shanghai and an AI safety hub launch at Tsinghua, to examine the American policy argument that any safety obligation is futile because China will not care. He finds that Chinese models and services currently have weaker safeguards than OpenAI and Anthropic, but argues the gap is often overstated once those two leaders are separated from the broader American field. The episode traces China's “45-degree line” idea that capability and safety should rise together, the university-centered structure of Chinese AI safety work, and the rapid growth of Chinese research on topics like self-replication, deception, evaluation faking, and interpretability. The stakes are whether US policy should be built around a simplified “but China” assumption, or around a more accurate picture of a rival ecosystem that is behind in some ways, converging in others, and paying closer attention to Western AI safety than many Americans realize. For full show notes, links, and references, read the episode page:https://www.cognitiverevolution.ai/nathan-goes-to-china-part-2-ai-safety-with-chinese-characteristics/ Sponsor: Claude: Claude by Anthropic is an AI collaborator that understands your workflow and helps you tackle research, writing, coding, and organization with deep context. Get started with Claude and explore Claude Pro at https://claude.ai/tcr CHAPTERS: (00:01) China safety framing (05:37) Safeguards and benchmarks (Part 1) (15:04) Sponsor: Claude (16:33) Safeguards and benchmarks (Part 2) (21:39) Company safety incentives (28:17) Research cross pollination (36:07) Nonprofits versus academia (45:13) Xi safety rhetoric (52:00) Tsinghua safety hub (01:00:28) Research paper boom (01:18:32) Governance track record (01:31:37) LLM regulatory process (01:42:57) Monitoring and enforcement (01:57:45) Risk framework gaps (02:05:08) Confucian alignment questions (02:11:49) Episode Outro (02:15:36) Outro PRODUCED BY: https://aipodcast.ing SOCIAL LINKS: Website: https://www.cognitiverevolution.ai Twitter (Podcast): https://x.com/cogrev_podcast Twitter (Nathan): https://x.com/labenz LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/nathanlabenz/ Youtube: https://youtube.com/@CognitiveRevolutionPodcast Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/the-cognitive-revolution-ai-builders-researchers-and/id1669813431 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6yHyok3M3BjqzR0VB5MSyk

https://rumble.com/user/TheCultureWarshttps://x.com/NewsK365https://buymeacoffee.com/courtpresshttps://www.youtube.com/@NewsK365Email: newsk365@protonmail.com

NEWS: Marcos calls for stronger public school safeguards following Tacloban shooting | July 29, 2026Subscribe to The Manila Times Channel - https://tmt.ph/YTSubscribe Visit our website at https://www.manilatimes.net Follow us: Facebook - https://tmt.ph/facebook Instagram - https://tmt.ph/instagram Twitter - https://tmt.ph/twitter DailyMotion - https://tmt.ph/dailymotion Subscribe to our Digital Edition - https://tmt.ph/digital Check out our Podcasts: Spotify - https://tmt.ph/spotify Apple Podcasts - https://tmt.ph/applepodcasts Amazon Music - https://tmt.ph/amazonmusic Deezer: https://tmt.ph/deezer Stitcher: https://tmt.ph/stitcherTune In: https://tmt.ph/tunein#TheManilaTimes#KeepUpWithTheTimes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

https://rumble.com/user/TheCultureWarshttps://x.com/NewsK365https://buymeacoffee.com/courtpresshttps://www.youtube.com/@NewsK365Email: newsk365@protonmail.com

A reported New Jersey voter-registration error involving 6,600 noncitizens becomes the starting point for Todd's broader argument about election integrity and public trust. He distinguishes evidence from conclusive proof, contending that acknowledged registration failures are reason enough to investigate vulnerabilities instead of dismissing concerns outright. Todd also examines the dispute between state officials and a software vendor over who was responsible for approving the registrations, while clearly presenting his own suspicion that government mismanagement—or indifference—may be the deeper problem. Turning to Congress, he urges listeners to press senators to consider the SAVE America Act and discusses its proposed safeguards, including documentary proof of citizenship at registration, voter photo identification, and limits on mass-mailed ballots while preserving requested absentee voting. He also responds to media arguments about whether improper registrations are widespread and highlights Senator Mike Lee's case for restoring confidence in elections. Throughout, Todd frames tighter procedures as a common-sense defense of constitutional self-government.

A reported New Jersey voter-registration error involving 6,600 noncitizens becomes the starting point for Todd's broader argument about election integrity and public trust. He distinguishes evidence from conclusive proof, contending that acknowledged registration failures are reason enough to investigate vulnerabilities instead of dismissing concerns outright. Todd also examines the dispute between state officials and a software vendor over who was responsible for approving the registrations, while clearly presenting his own suspicion that government mismanagement—or indifference—may be the deeper problem. Turning to Congress, he urges listeners to press senators to consider the SAVE America Act and discusses its proposed safeguards, including documentary proof of citizenship at registration, voter photo identification, and limits on mass-mailed ballots while preserving requested absentee voting. He also responds to media arguments about whether improper registrations are widespread and highlights Senator Mike Lee's case for restoring confidence in elections. Throughout, Todd frames tighter procedures as a common-sense defense of constitutional self-government.

Peter Huessy. Peter Huessy and John Batchelor review classic films like Godzilla, On the Beach, and Dr. Strangelove to discuss cultural fears of nuclear war. They contrast cinematic depictions of accidental launches with modern safeguards, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent in a complex geopolitical landscape. (15)1940

The American people can and must take certain urgent actions to make sure the 2026 elections are honest and secure, and everything is at stake in this particular battle, explained recently released elections leader and former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters in an exclusive interview with The New American magazine’s Alex Newman for Behind The ... The post Tina Peters: US Must Do THIS to Safeguard Elections BEFORE Midterms appeared first on The New American.

Potterhouse - "How to Get Three" - Buy Two and Get a Third One https://www.wfmu.org/playlists/shows/166613

Todd examines President Trump's election-integrity speech and argues that public confidence depends on confronting vulnerabilities instead of dismissing concerns. He criticizes ABC and NBC for not carrying the speech, framing their decision as another example of legacy media filtering information rather than letting Americans evaluate political arguments for themselves.The discussion centers on Trump's call for the SAVE America Act, including documentary proof of citizenship during voter registration and voter identification at the polls. Todd uses a changing-the-locks analogy to distinguish the existence of security weaknesses from proof that every weakness has been exploited. He also reviews Trump's claims about noncitizens appearing on voter rolls, foreign access to voter data, declassified intelligence, and the need to investigate election-related crimes—carefully noting that registration concerns or breached data do not, by themselves, establish that illegal votes were cast or election results changed.Todd's broader case is that secure elections require transparency, enforceable safeguards, and officials willing to answer disputed claims with evidence. He closes by urging listeners who support the legislation to contact their senators.

Todd examines President Trump's election-integrity speech and argues that public confidence depends on confronting vulnerabilities instead of dismissing concerns. He criticizes ABC and NBC for not carrying the speech, framing their decision as another example of legacy media filtering information rather than letting Americans evaluate political arguments for themselves.The discussion centers on Trump's call for the SAVE America Act, including documentary proof of citizenship during voter registration and voter identification at the polls. Todd uses a changing-the-locks analogy to distinguish the existence of security weaknesses from proof that every weakness has been exploited. He also reviews Trump's claims about noncitizens appearing on voter rolls, foreign access to voter data, declassified intelligence, and the need to investigate election-related crimes—carefully noting that registration concerns or breached data do not, by themselves, establish that illegal votes were cast or election results changed.Todd's broader case is that secure elections require transparency, enforceable safeguards, and officials willing to answer disputed claims with evidence. He closes by urging listeners who support the legislation to contact their senators.

The abuse and neglect of a child in Charlotte prompted state lawmakers to pass stronger child welfare regulations as part of the newly enacted budget bill.The Dominique Moody Safety Act was passed in the state House and later added to the state budget bill. It addresses the death of six-year-old Dominique Moody, who was abused and neglected while living with a relative despite visits to the home by social workers and law enforcement. WUNC News sat down with the bill's sponsor, Rep. Allen Chesser, R-Nash, to learn more about how the legislation aims to prevent future tragedies and put more safeguards into the child welfare system. Chesser also spoke about new legislation on blockchain and digital currency issues and a proposed sales tax exemption for diapers.

With over 25 years of legal experience and a focus on estate planning and probate for the past 12 years, Antoinette Bone is a recognized for helping individuals protect their assets and leave a lasting legacy. Visit her website here: https://abonelaw.com/

Meat industry leaders are disappointed with the United States' move to initiate a safeguard investigation into lamb imports from New Zealand and Australia. The investigation, to be carried out by the US's International Trade Commission, is expected to take up to six months to complete. The Country's Jamie Mackay explained further. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Proverbs 12:16-23 Speak Truth (16) Speak the truth in love (17-18) Embrace Foresight and Obedience Cheerfully (19-23)

EP 319 JUSTICE FOR NOLAN WELLS . In this episode, the hosts explore trending true crime stories, celebrity legal battles, and social justice issues that resonate deeply with the Black community. Their candid discussion sheds light on systemic issues, media influence, and the importance of community support. . CHAPTERS . 00:00 - Intro and episode overview 01:00 - Sipping the Tea with Tanya B, Talib, and Tommy B 01:20 - Update on Tigger's legal issues and allegations 02:16 - Behind the public drama 03:09 - Jermaine Dupree's record industry issues 04:05 - Sony, royalties, and artist rights in the music business 05:43 - The Nolan Wells missing persons case and police investigations 07:45 - The influence of community, influencers, and legal advocates 09:54 - Water safety, and the importance of trust in social circles 12:33 - The connection to small-town secrets and historical context 15:01 - The importance of trustworthiness among youth 16:34 - Safeguards and the importance of parental awareness 17:15 - True crime's popularity and its impact on public consciousness 18:18 - Media's role and the rise of Black podcasters in justice coverage 19:54 - Celebrity involvement and community support 21:02 - The importance of legal custody and protecting children 22:38 - The dangers of water recreation and misjudgment 23:14 - Background checks and community knowledge 24:12 - Remembering Rodney Franklin 25:11 - Celebrating student achievement and education excellence 26:34 - The impact of athlete and celebrity retirements on communities 28:33 - Deleted Text Messages 29:08 - Final thoughts and appreciation for community engagement . This Is The G Podcast - https://castropolis.net

Fergus Green of the Australia Institute joins the Green Left Show to discuss the new report about Labor's climate policy - the Safeguard Mechanism. Green is the co-author with Frances Medlock of the new report "Safeguarding the Fossil Fuel Industry? How Carbon Offsetting Undermines the Safeguard Mechanism". Watch this interview online: greenleft.org.au/2026/1457/analysis/green-left-show-87-au-climate-safeguard-dodgy-offsets-and-climate-policy-we-need Read more: greenleft.org.au/2026/1457/analysis/new-research-finds-labors-safeguard-mechanism-failing

Send us Fan MailHeather Bacchus joined Liz Collin on her podcast. Bacchus lost her son, Randy Michael, to cannabis-induced psychosis and suicide at the age of 21. Since then, she has been a brave voice in Minnesota, battling through her own grief to help others and advocate for better laws and safeguards in the cannabis industry.Bacchus spoke about parallels between how tobacco products were marketed in the past and how cannabis-based products are being marketed today. She also talked about the need for warning labels and potency limits, and her latest efforts to educate children and parents alike.Support the show

126. Psychedelics & Addiction: What the Research ShowsAddiction psychiatrist Dr. Nathan Sackett on psilocybin, ibogaine, MDMA, ketamine, and what psychedelic-assisted therapy can and cannot do for substance use disorder.Episode SummaryThe conversation about psychedelics as addiction treatment is moving faster than the research. Dr. Nathan Sackett is trying to close that gap. Founding director of the Center for Novel Therapeutics at the University of Washington, Sackett is an addiction psychiatrist who still sees patients — which matters, because every study his center runs is rooted in clinical reality, not advocacy optics. In this live recording from the Psychedelic Salon at Town Hall Seattle, we cover what the evidence actually supports, what compounds carry genuine risk, and why the most important variable in treatment outcomes may not be the drug at all. If you've been following psychedelic news and want a clearer picture of what's real, this is the conversation.

ThePrintPod: Frontier model security risks, an annulled poll, deepfakes—UN report warns AI is outpacing safeguards

Learn more at TheCityLife.org

Subscribe to LMSU's Patreon for Germany industrial decarb tour and London Climate Action Week debrief! This week our Bonus episode includes a debrief from Luke and Tennant on their recent tour of Germany looking for inspo for Australia's industrial decarbonisation journey plus extra side BoCo on BoCo reportage of the goings on at London Climate Action Week, including the launch of #ElectrifyNow global campaign! Run, don't walk, over to www.letmesumup.net and subscribe to our Patreon to check it out. -- In an unprecedented move of late your intrepid hosts temporarily abandon Energy Crisis Corner (we'll be back fo sho) for a look at China's just latest and just-published Five Year Plan! On first review of the climate and energy parts, it looks to be weak on carbon and large scale renewables targets but respected Respected China Energy Watchers also argue it's incredibly strong on the growth of storage and flexibility, and electrification? Already miles ahead of the global ambition in the new #ElectrifyNow campaign for 35% of final energy demand by 2035 - China reckons they'll get there by 2030 at a steady cruise! Our main course The time has come! Muskovic's Methane Musings takes to the main stage - as it was always destined to! - and we dive into the Climate Change Authority's latest consultation paper, ‘Fossil methane: A near-term abatement opportunity'. The good folk at the CCA are being pragmatic and laying out the facts when it comes to sources of methane in Australia, but they're zeroing in on near term abatement opportunities in the coal and gas sectors, because there's a lot we can do! Tune in for the opening debate on GWP20 vs GWP100, why measurement and reporting could be better and what kinds of technology and policies could be looked at federally (lookin at you Safeguard) and at the state level. Consultation closes on 7 August so hop on it folks! One more things Tennant's One More Thing is: Orica reaching final investment decision on the Hunter Valley Hydrogen Hub, with a lil' help from the Hydrogen Headstart program! Frankie's One More Thing is: a shoutout to Summerupperer Rowan Moorey from Springmount Advisory for alerting us to some cool stats from the IEA showing the significance of energy efficiency compared to electrification, renewables and nuclear on energy and cost savings globally in response to the global fuel crisis. Efficiency for the win! Luke's One More Thing is: a shout out for the global electrification campaign ElectrifyNow.world launched at London Climate Action Week during a record-breaking heatwave. TL;DR is London isn't set up for extreme heat and some innovative solutions (cushions stuffed in windows, anyone?) were being deployed across the city to keep folks comfortable. *cough* Adaptation *cough* And that's it for now, Summerupperers. There is now a one-stop-shop for all your LMSU needs: head to letmesumup.net

Blanche v. Lau, No. 25-429 (U.S. June 23, 2026)applicant for admission; returning LPR; parole Mullin v. Doe (Miot), No. 25-1083 (U.S. June 25, 2026)TPS; jurisdiction; determination; termination; preliminary relief; equal protection   Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, No. 25-5 (U.S. June 25, 2026)canon against surplusage; presumption against extraterritoriality Garcia Corrales v. Blanche, No. 24-6467 (9th Cir. June 24, 2026)motion to reopen dismissal for untimely appeal; mailing delay; new evidence; motion to reconsider not only way to challenge dismissal Hayles v. U.S. Att'y Gen., No. 24-10516 (11th Cir. June 22, 2026)petition for review CAT; FARO; Riley; frivolous PFR; jurisdiction; brief cannot cure jurisdictional deficient PFR Matter of P-A-C-, 29 I&N Dec. 708 (BIA 2026)discretionary denial of asylum where withholding of removal granted; multiple DUIs; fraud as negative discretionary factor for asylumImmigrants' List Matter of T-A-G-, 29 I&N Dec. 715 (BIA 2026)ACA pretermitting asylum application; collateral relief; pending I-130 Matter of Best, 29 I&N Dec. 723 (BIA 2026)extreme hardship; § 212(h) waiver; discretion; arrests and convictions Matter of C-L-R-, 29 I&N Dec. 726 (BIA 2026)M-A-M- safeguards; qualified representative; refusal to sell drugs; mental health claims in Honduras Matter of G-L-C-, 29 I&N Dec. 717 (BIA 2026)drug delivery and particularly serious crime; N-A-M- element one; nature of the offense; Penn. Cons. Stat. § 780-113(a)(30); transgender women in Jamaica; United Kingdom's Home Office reportsKurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.eimmigration"Immigration law software you'll love to use."get.eimmigration.com/IRP Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Click me!Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATION:Email: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerSupport the show

"In crypto, if your money's gone from your wallet, everything can be gone in one second immediately."   Most people picture online scams as one person in a basement sending sketchy emails. The reality is far bigger and far more organized. In this episode, recorded at the Safeguard conference in Colorado Springs, host Jordan sits down with Nikita, co-founder and CEO of ⁠Chain Patrol⁠, to talk about how modern fraud actually works. We get into why stolen crypto almost never comes back, how scam operations now run like real companies with engineers and developers, and how artificial intelligence has made sophisticated attacks cheap enough to target everyday people instead of just high-value executives. Nikita also opens up about the human cost behind these operations, including trafficking victims forced to run scams against their will, and a documentary his team has been quietly working on.   We also discuss one of the largest crypto thefts in history, how the attackers pulled it off, and why the weakest point in nearly every story is a person rather than a piece of code. Whether you work in fraud and security or you just want to understand how to keep yourself and your family safe, this one is packed with stories you have not heard and warnings you will want to remember.   Visit ChainPatrol to learn more: ⁠https://chainpatrol.com⁠   V I D E O S T O W A T C H N E X T   Think you can't be scammed? Think again: https://youtu.be/bAwpKd2IlGo   From CIA to Cyber Intelligence: 2026 Cyber Intelligence Predictions! https://youtu.be/3gPkMfPU31c   --------------------------------------------  

Sermon: We Must Safeguard Our Crown of GloryBy Brother Carlos Alberto Baena, worldwide head pastor of the ChurchLocation: La Colina, Bogota ColombiaStreamed on June 7, 2026Church of God Ministry of Jesus Christ Internationalhttps://idmji.org/en

Jeremy Bearer-Friend and Sarah Polcz discuss their proposal to require leading AI firms to pay taxes in equity, reshaping how the gains from AI are distributed --- Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping the economy, but two Stanford Law alumni argue that existing tax frameworks are failing to capture—or fairly distribute—the value it generates. Jeremy Bearer-Friend, JD '14, a professor at George Washington University Law School, and Sarah Polcz, JSM '12, JSD '20, a professor at UC Davis School of Law, join co-host Professor Richard Thompson Ford to discuss a proposal that would require leading AI companies to pay a portion of their taxes in equity rather than cash, with those shares placed into a public trust, and their work with U.S. Senate members to make this happen. The conversation explores a central question: If AI was built on vast amounts of human-generated text, images, and creative work, who is entitled to share in the wealth it produces? Bearer-Friend and Polcz connect their proposal to broader concerns about wealth concentration and whether the gains from AI will flow to a narrow class of tech executives and investors—or to the public at large. The episode also examines how an equity-based tax could work in practice, including questions of governance, political insulation, and the mechanics of a sovereign wealth fund, and what it would mean to give the public a direct stake in the companies shaping the future of artificial intelligence. Links: Jeremy Bearer-Friend  >>> GW Law School page Sarah Polcz  >>> UC Davis School of Law page “Sharing the Algorithm: The Tax Solution to Generative AI” >>> Columbia Journal of Tax Law page American AI Wealth Fund Bill >>> PDF “Everyone Wants to Tax A.I. The Big Disagreement: How?” >>> NY Times DealBook page “Don't laugh off Bernie Sanders' communist AI-heist attempt — young voters are falling for it” >>> New York Post page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>>  Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) A Tax Paid in Stock (00:02:14) IP, Inequality, and the AI Boom (00:05:56) Why the Public Deserves an Equity Stake (00:11:58) How the Tax Would Actually Work—Stock, Rates, and Governance (00:16:59) Sanders, Trump, and a Race to Co-opt the Idea (00:21:06) Objections, Safeguards, and the Road Ahead Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This week, Venus' trine to Saturn offers structure and longevity to our romance and creativity. The Sun's square to Neptune brings perspective about mentors, leaders, and sense of self. Competition and moving toward goals are highlighted by Mars and Jupiter in a sextile aspect. Communication and transportation can take an assertive or possibly aggressive tone as Mars enters Gemini. And a listener question about transits that are highly touted but end up being a disappointment. Plus: Running on empty, awaiting opportunity for expression, and annoyance is not a crisis!  Read a full transcript of this episode. Have a question you'd like answered on the show? Email April or leave it here! Subscribe to April's mailing list and get a free lunar workbook at each New Moon! Love the show? Make a donation! Timestamps [1:35] Moon Report! No major lunation this week. Void-of-Course (VOC) Moon periods: The Moon in Libra squares Jupiter in Cancer (June 23, 9:11 pm PDT). It's VOC for 2 hours, 32 minutes, and then enters Scorpio (11:43 pm PDT). During this VOC Moon, remind yourself that annoyance is not a crisis! [3:14] The Moon in Scorpio trines Jupiter (June 26, 10:10 am PDT). It's VOC for 1 hour, 31 minutes, and then enters Sagittarius (11:41 am PDT). Use this VOC Moon period to establish a routine of cleansing intense feelings through movement and enjoying beautiful scenery. [4:46] The Moon in Sagittarius trines Venus in Leo (June 27, 10:04 pm PDT), then it's VOC for 26 hours, 14 minutes, before it enters Capricorn (June 29, 12:18 am PDT). Use this exciting VOC Moon period to socialize, date, and attend live entertainment. [5:59] Venus trines Saturn (June 25, 5:02 am PDT) at 13°55' Leo and Aries. Venus is on the Sabian symbol 14 Leo, The human soul awaiting opportunity for expression. If you have had a creative project on the back burner and you're ready to bring it to life, this is a good transit for that. [8:07] The Sun squares Neptune (June 25, 3:38 pm PDT) at 4°22' Cancer and Aries. Make time for relaxation. Indulge in the arts. Safeguard your health. [10:33] Mars sextiles Jupiter (June 27, 9:50 pm PDT) at 29°33' Taurus and Cancer. When planets are on the anaretic degrees of a sign, things can feel volatile, erratic, or unpredictable. Assert yourself, but don't lose sight of good sportsmanship and generosity. Get some physical activity, just be mindful of your limits. [13:04] Mars enters Gemini (June 28, 12:29 pm PDT until Aug. 11), and it will immediately begin to make its conjunction to Uranus. Beware of arguments and road rage. Excellent transit for wordsmiths. To see how Mars in Gemini has affected you in the past, look back at July 20-Sep. 4, 2024, focusing on the house Gemini occupies in your chart. [17:04] Listener Vicki asks about disappointing transits. [24:30] Leave a message of one minute or less at speakpipe.com/ bigskyastrologypodcast or email april (at) bigskyastrology (dot) com; put “Podcast Question” in the subject line. Free ways to support the podcast: subscribe, like, review and share with a friend! [25:05] A tribute to this week's donors! If you would like to support the show and receive access to April's special donors-only videos, go to BigSkyAstropod.com and contribute $10 or more. You can make a one-time donation in any amount or become an ongoing monthly contributor.

Black history in the US is rich, profound -- and at risk of being lost forever, if not for the monumental efforts of Julieanna L. Richardson. As the founder of The HistoryMakers -- the largest national archive of African American video-oral history -- Richardson shares some of the unknown and incredible legacies of Black America, highlighting the importance of documenting and preserving the past for future generations. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging reports that 1.3 million older adults and people with disabilities are under guardianship. Senators Bob Casey and Mike Braun have highlighted serious flaws in guardianship laws, citing alarming statistics from the Government Accountability Office.In New York, the Farley family is embroiled in a legal battle over the guardianship of 84-year-old Dr. Ena Farley. Jonathan Farley claims his mother was unjustly placed under guardianship and removed from her home by police, an incident caught on video. He alleges that his brother Chris, acting as Power of Attorney and temporary guardian, is responsible for her year-long confinement in a nursing home, despite no finding of mental incompetence. Jonathan says authorities and agencies have sided with Chris, denied an independent medical evaluation, and restricted contact with Dr. Farley.A court hearing in June will address the dispute. The Farley case highlights ongoing ethical and legal concerns in guardianship, echoing calls for stronger protection for vulnerable individuals.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCZw6IGlhtj3GuC_VlEOFCAhttp://www.yourlotandparcel.orgSupport the show

AI agents are useful, but they become risky when they can take action in real systems. In this episode, Tom Eston discusses recent reporting about attackers tricking Meta's AI support chatbot into helping hijack Instagram accounts, and why that story matters far beyond social media. Tom explains practical guardrails for AI agents: read-only access first, human approval for consequential actions, separated accounts and contexts, prompt-injection awareness, least privilege, logging, monitoring, and adversarial testing for support and account recovery workflows. Special thanks to Guardsquare for sponsoring this episode! Guardsquare is the leader in mobile application security, with multi-layered protection for your Android and iOS apps. Learn more at Guardsquare.com. ** Links mentioned on the show ** Podcast: Hackers Asked Meta AI To Let Them In. It Worked https://www.404media.co/podcast-hackers-asked-meta-ai-to-let-them-in-it-worked/ The Verge summary of the Meta/Instagram AI support chatbot exploit https://www.theverge.com/tech/941179/meta-instagram-ai-support-chatbot-exploit-hacked ** Watch this episode on YouTube ** ** Become a Shared Security Supporter ** Get exclusive access to bonus episodes, listen to new episodes before they are released, receive a monthly shout-out on the show, and get a discount code for 15% off merch at the Shared Security store. Become a supporter today by going to our YouTube channel's membership section: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg9CCDIYkDDqwEZ3UYaxjnA/join ** Thank you to our sponsors! ** SLNT Visit slnt.com to check out SLNT's amazing line of Faraday bags and other products built to protect your privacy. As a listener of this podcast you receive 10% off your order at checkout using discount code “sharedsecurity”. ** Subscribe and follow the podcast ** Subscribe on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SharedSecurityPodcast Follow us on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/sharedsecurity.bsky.social Follow us on Mastodon: https://infosec.exchange/@sharedsecurity Join us on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/SharedSecurityShow/ Visit our website: https://sharedsecurity.net Subscribe on your favorite podcast app: https://sharedsecurity.net/subscribe Sign-up for our email newsletter to receive updates about the podcast, contest announcements, and special offers from our sponsors: https://shared-security.beehiiv.com/subscribe Leave us a rating and review: https://ratethispodcast.com/sharedsecurity Contact us: https://sharedsecurity.net/contact The post Guarding AI Agents: Boundaries and Safeguards appeared first on Shared Security Podcast.

Join the team for a look at the latest aviation news from around the world and across the UK.  In this week's show being naughty on board an aircraft could come with heavier penalties soon, one US airline brings in tighter rules to safe guard crews and what's the one word not to name your Bluetooth device when traveling, we find out. And in the military Armando brings us another update and theres breaking news from the UK.  You can get in touch with us all at : WhatsApp +447446975214 Email podcast@planetalkinguk.com or comment in our chatroom on YouTube.

#853: Pope Leo calls for regulation of AI in a manifesto about the future of humanity. The Enhanced Games makes its debut as athletes try to break records with performance-enhancing drugs. The low-budget horror film ‘Obsession' scores big at the box office. Shibumi shades have taken over beaches across America, but some coastal towns are trying to bring them down.  Learn more at Linkedin.com/MBD Sign up to join our trivia night! https://mbdtrivianight-june2026.splashthat.com/  Subscribe to Morning Brew Daily for more of the news you need to start your day. Share the show with a friend, and leave us a review on your favorite podcast app. Listen to Morning Brew Daily Here:⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.swap.fm/l/mbd-note⁠⁠⁠  Watch Morning Brew Daily Here:⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@MorningBrewDailyShow⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What's next in the attempt to change the course of type 1 diabetes?  SAB Bio says they're looking to redefine what it means to get a type 1 diabetes diagnosis. They're trialing a drug right now preserve the patient's ability to make their own insulin.. and maybe even allow repeat dosing. I'm talking to Dr. Michael Haller from the University of Florida and Sam Reich the CEO of SAB Bio about what makes this different and what their big hopes are. This podcast is not intended as medical advice. If you have those kinds of questions, please contact your health care provider. Announcing Community Commericals! Learn how to get your message on the show here. Learn more about studies and research at Thrivable here Please visit our Sponsors & Partners - they help make the show possible! Omnipod - Simplify Life All about Dexcom  All about VIVI Cap to protect your insulin from extreme temperatures The best way to keep up with Stacey and the show is by signing up for our weekly newsletter: Sign up for our newsletter here Here's where to find us: Facebook (Group) Facebook (Page) Instagram Check out Stacey's books! Learn more about everything at our home page www.diabetes-connections.com 

Most of us can't be with our children 24/7. At some point, we often must hand off care of our children school staff, nurses, therapists, hospitals, family members, etc to help care for our disabled and medically complex kids. And honestly? That can feel terrifying.In this episode, we're exploring one of the hardest topics parents in this community navigate: preventing abuse and neglect for children who may not be able to fully communicate what happened to them. We talk about the fears parents carry, missed medical care and hospital concerns, building trust with other caregivers, red flags families watch for, and the real-life strategies parents use to try to keep their children safe.If you've ever wondered how to balance protection with independence, trust your gut when something feels off, or navigate the reality that you can't always be there, we hope this episode gives you a little guidance to get started.Links:Fill out our contact form to join upcoming discussion groups!Join The Rare Life newsletter and never miss an update!Follow us on Instagram @the_rare_life!Donate to the podcast or Contact me about sponsoring an episode.