Podcasts about Tang

Masterpiece Podcasts: Collection of Chinese Classic Novels

CW: Suicide This episode we are talking about Law and Order--where Ritsuryo system gets its name.  We are going to look at some of the underlying theory of how the government was set up and then some of the new laws people were expected to follow and examples of punishment--as well as pardons and general amnesties. For the blogpost, check out:  https://sengokudaimyo.com/podcast/episode-145 Rough Transcript Welcome to Sengoku Daimyo's Chronicles of Japan.  My name is Joshua, and this is Episode 145:  Law and Order in the Reign of Temmu     The sound of struggle could be heard, as a man, hands bound behind him, was roughly brought into the courtyard by several sturdy men.  They thrust him roughly to the bare ground in front of the pavilion.  The man's clothes were disheveled, his hair was unkempt, and his right eye was swollen shut.  He was a stark contrast from the four officials standing over him, and even more from those who stood in the pavilion, above, prepared to dole out judgment.  A clerk was handling the paperwork at a nearby desk, but the court official already knew this case.  He had read the reports, heard the testimony of the witnesses and, to top it all off, he had read the confession.  It seems it had taken some coercion, but in the end, the criminal before him had admitted to his wrongdoing. And thus the official was able to pronounce the sentence with some sense of moral clarity.  After all, if this man was innocent, why would he confess?  On the other hand, if he were truly innocent, how would he even have come to their attention?  Even if he was not guilty of this crime, if he had been such an upstanding citizen, why would his neighbors have accused him in the first place?  One way or another, justice was being done.     We remain—for at least the next couple of episodes—firmly in the reign of Ohoama, aka Temmu Tennou.  There is a lot more in this reign, and we are reaching a period where we won't be able to cover nearly as much as previously, so we'll have to summarize some things, but there is still a lot here to discuss.  Last episode we looked at what was happening outside of the court.  This episode we turn our attention back to the center, and specifically, what law and order meant in Ohoama's time. This period is called the Ritsuryo period, and as the name indicates, it is characterized by the set of laws and accompanying penal codes, the ritsu and the ryo.  Most of these codes are no longer extant, only known to us by other sources which contain only fragments of the originals.  But it was this adoption of a continental style of law that seems to most characterize this period.  So this episode, we are going to look at the project Ohoama kicked off to establish  one such law code —possibly even the first actual—for Yamato, as well as some of the examples of how law and order were enforced. In Episode 143 we talked about Ohoama's  historiographical project, which kicked off in the third month of 681 and culminated in the very chronicles we have been poring over.  However, a month before that, we see the start of a different and likely more immediate project, as the sovereign ordered work to begin on a new legal code.  This task was decreed from the Daigokuden to all of the Princes and Ministers -- who were then cautioned to divide it up and take it in shifts, since after all, they still needed to administer the government.  And so this division of labor began. The code would take years to compile, so, like so many of the ambitious projects of this reign, it was not quite ready by the time of Ohoama's death in 686.  In fact, it wouldn't be promulgated until 689, and even then that was only the "Ryou" part of the "Ritsuryou"—that is to say it contained the laws, the "ryou", but no the penal code, or "ritsu".  Still, we are told that the total body of laws was some 22 volumes and is known today as the Asuka Kiyomihara Code.  It is unfortunately no longer extant—we only have evidence of the laws based on those edicts and references we see in the Nihon Shoki, but it is thought by some to be the first such deliberate attempt to create a law code for Yamato.  We do have an earlier reference to Naka no Ohoye putting together a collection of laws during his reign, known as the Afumi Code, but there is some question as to whether that was actually a deliberate code or just a compilation of edicts that had been made up to that point.  These various codes are where the "Ritsuryo" period gets its name, and the Asuka Kiyomihara Code would eventually be supplanted in 701 by the Taihou code—which is one of the reasons why copies of previous codes haven't been kept around.  After all, why would you need the old law code when you now have the new and improved version? This also means that often, when we don't have other evidence, we look to later codes and histories to understand what might be happening when we get hints or fragments of legal matters.  The Chronicles often make note of various laws or customs, but they can be sparse on details.  After all, the main audience, in the 8th century, would be living the current law codes and likely understood the references in ways we may have to work out through other sources. As for the Kiyomihara Code, there are further notes in the Chronicles that seem to be referencing this project.  Besides the obvious—the new laws that were promulgated through various edicts—we see a few entries sprinkled throughout that appear to be related to this project.  First, I would note that in the 10th month of the same year that they started the project, 681, there was issued an edict that all those of the rank of Daisen on down should offer up their admonitions to the government.   Bentley notes that Article 65 of the Statutes on Official Documents provides a kind of feedback mechanism via this admonitions, where anyone who saw a problem with the government could submit it to the Council of the State.  If they had a fear of reprisals they could submit anonymously. This entry for the 10th month of 681 could just refer to a similar request that all those who had a problem should report it so it could be fixed, but in light of several other things, I would also suggest that it was at least in line with the ongoing efforts to figure out what needed to be figured out vis a vis the laws of the land.  Later, in the 8th month of 682 we see a similar type of request, where everyone from the Princes to the Ministers were instructed to bring forward matters suitable for framing new regulations.   So it looks like that first year or so there were, in a sense, a lot of "listening sessions" and other efforts going on to give deliberate thought to how the government should operate.  A few days later in 682 the Chronicles tell us that the court were working on drawing up the new laws, and as they did so they noticed a great rainbow.  Bentley suggests that this was an auspicious sign—even Heaven was smiling on the operation. So we know that there was lawmaking going on.  But what did these laws actually look like? This episode we are going to look at both criminal law – crimes and punishments, and gow they could be mitigated as well as those laws that were less about criminal activities and more about how the state itself was to be run. As I just stated, a lot of the laws and edicts are not necessarily about criminal activities.  Many of them are about the government and how it works—or at least how it is supposed to work.  Some of this helps to reveal a bit about the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of this project.  That said, I'm not always sure that Ohoama and his officials were necessarily adherents to those philosophies or if they saw them more as justifications fro their actions.  And, in the end, does it matter?  Even if they weren't strict Confucianists, it is hard to argue that Confucian theory didn't loom large in their project, given its impact on the systems they were cribbing from.  Furthermore, if we need to extrapolate things that go unsaid, we could do worse than using Confucianism and similar continental philosophies as our guide, given what we see in the record.  A particularly intriguing record for understanding how that government was supposed to work is a declaration that civil and military officials of the central and provincial governments should, every year, consider their subordinates and determine what promotions, if any, they should receive.  They were to send in their recommendations within the first ten days to the judges, or "houkan".  The judges would compare the reports and make their recommendations up to the Daibenkan—the executive department of the Dajokan, the Council of State.  In addition, officers who refused orders to go on various missions for the court were ineligible for promotion, unless their refusal was specifically for genuine illness or bereavement following the loss of a parent. This feels like an important note on how the whole bureaucratic appointment and promotion system worked.  It actually follows early ideas of the meritocratic bureaucracy that was at the heart of how the government was supposed to work.  It isn't quite the same as magistrates roaming the land and seeking out talented individuals, but it still demonstrates a promotion system that is at least nominally about the merit of the individual and not solely based on personal patronage—though I'm sure the sovereign, the sumera no mikoto, or tennou, could still issue promotions whenever he so wished. And as cool as I find all that to be, I think the piece that I find particularly fun is the fact that they had to specify that only a "genuine" illness was a valid excuse.  That suggests to me that there were people who would feign illness to get out of work.  In other words, faking a sick day is nothing new and you could totally have a ritsuryo version of "Ferris Buehler's Day Off". This meritocratic idea seems to be tempered a bit a few years later, in 682.  We see an edict that not only describes the language and character of the court ritual, but also talking about verifying the lineage and character of anyone who applies for office.  Anyone whose lineage was found to be less than sufficient would be declared ineligible, regardless of whatever else they had done. And this is the tension of trying to overlay a theoretical system, based on the idea of merit, on a hereditary aristocracy.  In a meritocracy, one wouldn't blink twice at a person from a "lesser" ranked family making their way up and above those of "superior" families.  Then again, you probably wouldn't have families ranked in a hierarchy, anyway.  I feel like we've touched on this in a past episode, somewhere, but it isn't the last time we'll be talking about this.  After initially adopting the system as it theoretically should be, the cultural pressures of the elite nobles would start to shape the government into something that was not quite so threatening to the power of those elite families.  After all, those families held a lot of power—economic, political, and otherwise—and, as elites throughout history have done, they would do whatever they could to hold onto that power. This is actually something we see on the continent.  Whatever sense of justice or equality may have lay at the heart of the theory behind good governance, it was always going to be impacted by those with resources and the familial connections that bind people together.  For instance, it was the wealthy who would have the money and leisure time to be able to hire tutors, acquire books, and spend time studying and learning—something that is hard to do if you have to help your family work in the fields.  And the court would always be a place of politics, which was fueled by wealth and connections.  No doubt, if you asked someone of the time, they would say that the "correct" thing to do would be to work your way up from the bottom, starting from a low ranked position and climbing up based on their good deeds.  That's all well and good, but then we see preference given to the highest nobles, with their own progeny getting a jump on things by being automatically placed higher in rank.  With only a finite number of positions in the government, this meant  that climbing through the ranks would be almost impossible at some point, as there just weren't enough positions for those qualified to take them. This is an all-too-common problem, regardless of the actual system of government.  The powerful and wealthy have always had a leg up—though sometimes more than others. That isn't to say that those less fortunate were always ignored.  For instance, early in his reign, Ohoama made a decree to divide the common people—those who were not members of the royal family, so not princes or princesses—into three different classes, Upper, Middle, and Lower, all based on their wealth or financial status.  Only the two lower groups were eligible for loans of seed rice, should they need it.  That isn't so different than a lot of modern, means-tested government assistance programs, when you think about it.  The idea of breaking up groups into an "Upper", "Middle", and "Lower" category is found elsewhere—Bentley notes Article 16 of the Statutes of Arable Land dividing up families who planted mulberry.  "Ryou no Shuuge", a 9th century commentary on the Yoro law-code, notes that, at least by that time, the three categories were based on the number of people in a given household, not just the total wealth, it would seem.     Other decrees help us understand the make-up of the court, such as decree in the 8th month of 679, with the sovereign requesting that various houses send women to work in the court.  Bentley notes that this is very similar wording to Article 18 of the statutes of the Rear Palace, where the sovereign's consorts lived.  He also mentions a note in Ryou no Shuuge stating it was specifically women from noble families in the capital city and nearby who were employed for low-level tasks in the palace.     Continuing with the ordering of the government, in the third month of 681, Ohoama went to the well of the New Palace—the Nihi no Miya—and he ordered the military drums and other instruments to be played.  In the continental style, music was an important part of the military, with certain instruments and tunes that would be played for a variety of purposes.  It is unclear that the archipelago had such a detailed history of military music, and so it seems that this is in emulation of the continental practice. Then, in the 5th month, Ohoama had to crack down on another practice that was apparently taking off with the various public functionaries.  As we noted, earlier, public functionaries were reliant on their superiors, the judges, and then the Council of State for their promotion.  However, some appear to have found another way to garner favor, and that was through female palace officials—those working in the private quarters.  Those palace officials would have access to the sovereign and his families—his queen and various consorts.  And of course, if Ohoama heard good things about a person, then perhaps he would put them forward for promotion.  At the very least, if that person's name came forward, it might be well thought of.  And so public functionaries had taken to paying their respects to the women working in the palace.  Sometimes they would go to their doors and make their case directly.  Other times they would offer presents to them and their families.  This was clearly not how the system was intended to work.  As such, Ohoama told everyone to knock it off—should he hear about anyone trying this in the future, then the offenders would be punished according to their circumstances. Of course, I would note that this only would be a problem if the individuals were caught.  If the rest of Japanese history—heck, world history—is anything to go on, then humans are going to human and the court was no doubt deeply steeped in political maneuvering of all kinds.  I imagine that this practice never fully stopped, but it probably stopped being quite as blatant—for now. Continuing with the development of how the government operated, we get the entry for the 28th day of the 3rd lunar month of 682.  It starts with various sumptuary laws, with Princes down to public functionaries no longer wearing specialized caps of office—effectively getting rid of the idea of "cap-rank".  They also would no longer wear the aprons, sashes, or leggings that were part of the previous outfit.  Likewise the Uneme and female palace officials would no longer wear the elbow-straps or shoulder-scarves.  This appears to have moved the court closer to what the continent was wearing at the time, with belted garments based on clothing not too dissimilar from what was found across the Silk Road, to be honest.  They also discontinued all sustenance-fiefs for Princes and Ministers.  Those had to be returned to the State.  Presumably their salaries would then come from any stipends associated with their rank, instead.  This doesn't seem all that connected with the other edict, focused on clothing and rank, except that is part of the further centralization of power and authority—all taxes were to go to the central government and then get parceled out, and everyone—or at least those in the court—were to conform to a standard uniform.  That said, for all that it may have been the intent, as we shall see, the court would never fully get rid of the idea of privately held tax land—it would just take different forms over time. Later, we get more sumptuary laws, some about what the people of the court would wear, but others that were more general.  Sumptuary laws are laws specifically focused on controlling things such as expenditures or personal behavior—including what one wore and how they expressed themselves--and they are generally made to help order society in some way.  There were a lot of cultures where purple, for instance, was reserved for royalty—often because of how expensive it was and difficult to make.  Wearing an expensive purple fabric could be seen as an expression of wealth—and thus power—and that could feel like a challenge to those in power themselves.  It probably also meant that there was enough dye for the royal robes and it was not nearly so scarce. In other instances, we see sumptuary laws to call out people of certain groups.  Some laws are to distinguish an in-group, and others to call out a group to be set apart from society.  Other such laws were made to distinguish between social constructs such as caste or gender.  Even today we have a concept of "cross-dressing" as we have determined that certain clothing or styles are seen as either more masculine or feminine, and there are those who call out such things as somehow perverting society.  And yet, the clothing is simply pieces of fabric, and what may have been considered masculine or feminine in one time or place may not bee seen as such in another. In this case, the sumptuary laws in question focused on hairstyles.  Ohoama decreed that all persons, male or female, must tie up their hair—they couldn't leave it hanging down. This was to be done no later than the last day of the year—the 30th day of the 12th lunar month, though it could be required even before that.  We are also told that women were expected to ride horses in the saddle similar to the way men did. This appears to mean they would sit astride a saddle, with their legs on either side, and not in something akin to side saddle.  This also likely meant that women riding horses would want trousers, similar to what men wore, at least for that part of it.  Trying to wear a long skirt with your legs on either side of a horse does not strike me as the most comfortable position to put yourself in, not that people haven't figured it out over the centuries in various ways.  Indeed, in some Tang statuary, women are often depicted riding horseback with trousers.   In the 9th month of 682 we get a fun entry.  Well, I find it amusing.  We are told that the practice of ceremonial crawling and kneeling was to be abolished and that they would adopt the ceremonial custom of standing, as had been practiced in the Naniwa court.  And a part of me thinks of some old courtier who was having trouble with all of the kneeling who was suddenly very happy with this new ordinance.  On the other hand, it is fascinating to think of the other implications. First, we are being told that there was a custom of standing at the Naniwa court, while in Asuka there was a tradition of ceremonial crawling and kneeling.  Bentley's translation makes it apparent that this was specifically as you entered through the gates: that you would bow and then crawl through the entranceway. I'm assuming that the standing custom was based on continental tradition, since that seemed to be what the Naniwa palace was built to emulate, and that in returning to Asuka they were partaking in a more local ritual—though I'm not entirely certain as I just don't have enough information to know at this point.  Aston does claim that it was custom in the Tang court, though I'm not sure of his source for that. In 683 we get more information on how the court functioned.  We are told that there was a decree that all persons of rank in the Home Provinces were expected to present themselves at Court at some point in the first month of each quarter.  You were only excused if you were sick, at which point an official would need to send a report up to the judicial authorities.  So every noble in the Home Provinces had to travel to the court once every four months.  And if they couldn't, they need to be able to produce the equivalent of a doctor's note, saysing so. We aren't told why this was implemented.  I suspect that there had to be some compromise between nobles being at and working at the court and going back to their hometown to also keep an eye on things there.  It is possible that there were plenty of people who just weren't coming to the court unless they had to—living off their stipend, but not necessarily doing the work.  So this may have been a "return to office" type order to make sure that people were there, in the "office" of the court at least once every four months. This brings to mind the Edo period practice of alternate attendance, or Sankin-koutai, where daimyo would have to attend on the Shogun for a time and then could return home.  Of course, that was also done as a means to drain their coffers, and I don't believe this was meant in quite so punishing a manner. Having a permanent city, where the nobles had houses in the city, would likely fix these issues, allowing the court to be more regularly staffed.  Sure enough, that same decree included the decree that there would be a Capital City at Naniwa as well as other places, while the work at Nihiki, on what would become the Fujiwara capital, was already underway. Speaking of the capital, that work would require labor and people to oversee it.  In 10th month of 684, we see a note that gives us a glimpse into the management of corvee labor, as Prince Hatsuse and Kose no Asomi no Umakahi, as well as officials down to facilities managers, 20 people in all, were set up as corvee labor managers for the royal region.      Next, let's talk criminal matters.  What kinds of things were people being accused of or what laws were being set up to constraing the activities of individuals.   We'll start by looking at how justices was handled, generally speaking.  Some of it seems almost obvious, like in 675, when we are told that the sovereign ordered that nobody—whether a minister, a functionary, or a citizen—should commit an offense lest they be punished accordingly.  'But what was happening previously to make such a proclamation necessary? On the one hand, I suspect that this was a warning to the elites of the archipelago more than anything else, especially those who might not have been in direct fealty to the Yamato sovereign previously.  Those elites farther out in the provinces were probably used to a looser hand, and fewer consequences for their actions.  Back in Taika years, in the late 640s, just as everything was kicking off, the court had had to bring the hammer down on the governors and various kuni no miyatsuko, local elites who had been doing things their own way.  I suspect this was just a similar attempt to bring people into line and a reminder of who actually wore the hakama in this administration.  It also seems to be a straightforward statement that the law applied to every person—or at least every person outside of the sovereign, himself. That was likely a novel idea for many people, where those in positions of power were likely able to get away with murder, quite literally, because who was going to stop them?  We've seen how many of the more powerful families controlled what were essentially private armies. At the same time, 675 is before these new formal law codes and punishments were in place.  Presumably there was tradition in place and some understanding that the sovereign could declare laws and punishment, but I also wonder if this isn't part of the reason that they felt that centralized, authoritative, written law codes were required in the first place.  After all, communicating laws and punishments verbally across the archipelago, even with the potential for written edicts, likely relied a lot on local administrators to interpret the edicts and figure out what was going on. This seems to align with an edict from the 10th month of 679, which decried that there were many people guilty of crimes and violence hanging around the capital.  This was blamed on the Princes and Ministers, since the edict claimed that these high officials heard about it but didn't do anything, instead treating it like a nuisance that was too much trouble—or perhaps too personally expensive—to do anything about.  Alternatively, those same princes and ministers would see people that they knew were guilty, but they didn't want to go through the trouble of actually reporting them, and so the offenders could get away with it.  The proposed solution was to exhort those in higher stations to punish the offenses of those beneath them, while those of lower stations were expected to remonstrate with their superiors when those superiors were rude or violent.  In other words, if everyone just held everyone else accountable, then things would work out. This seems like a great sentiment, but I have to imagine that there was something more beyond the high-minded ideals. Again,  I suspect that it was probably as much Ohoama putting people on notice.  Still, this seems aspirational rather than definitive.      A clear example of the kind of thing that was being prohibited is likelye the decree about fishermen and hunters, who were forbidden from making pitfalls or using spear traps or similar devices.  Also, from the beginning of the 4th month until the 13th day of the 9th month, no one was to set fish-weirs, or himasakiri—an unknown device, but probably another type of fish trap.  Ohoama also prohibited the eating of cattle, horses, dogs, monkeys, or chickens.  Other animals, including boar, deer, fish, etc., were all fair game, as it were. The prohibition on traps is likely because they were a hazard to anyone walking through the area.  In the Tang dynasty they did something similar, but they did make exceptions for hunters in the deep mountains, who were supposed to put up signs warning any travelers.  As for the weirs and himasakiri, whatever that might be, I have less context, but likely it did have some reasoning—possibly similar to our modern concepts of having certain seasons for various types of fishing.  Fish weirs do create obstructions, and between the 4th and 9th lunar months Japan does see the summer monsoon rains—could that be the reason?  Tsuyu, or rainy season, is often around July to mid-June, today.  Or perhaps there is another motivation for that particular prohibition. As for the eating of various animals—of the animals listed, all but the monkeys are domesticated animals who generally weren't considered as food animals.  Cattle were used for working the fields, horses were ridden, and dogs were used for hunting.  I wonder if monkeys were just too close to people. The chicken prohibition may seem odd to us, today.  The word for chicken, "niwatori", literally means garden bird, though the Nihon Shoki uses something more like "barn door bird".  We know that cock-fighting was a thing in later periods, and that chickens were associated with Amaterasu, possibly for their legendary habit of crowing as the sun comes up.  We can also note the lack of some animals, like cats, from the list.  Perhaps cats were never in danger of being seen as a food source, or perhaps cats just weren't as prevalent at the time—we know cats were around from at least the Nara period, but there isn't much evidence before that.  There are examples of bones thought to be from a cat from the Yayoi period found on Iki island, but it is hard to say from that if they were fully established across the archipelago. Still,  I do find it curious they are not on the list.Continuing on, we later see where see the court issued an edict that prohibited the cutting of grass or firewood on Mt. Minabuchi and Mt. Hosokawa.  Furthermore they prevented any indiscriminate burning or cutting on all of the mountains in the Home Provinces.  This feels somewhat religious—after all, the mountains were often considered the domain of the kami.  Perhaps there were some religious restrictions.  On the other hand, some of it sounds like they were trying to just ensure that with a growing population they didn't denude the mountains around the capital. This whole incident brings to mind problems that occurred in and around Chang'an, the western Tang capital.  The palace itself—not to mention all of the houses and temples—took so much wood that it was a drain on the nearby forests.  And that is without taking into account the simple harvesting of wood for cooking fires, tools, etc.  In fact, the logging industry of that time devastated the local environment, meaning that they had to travel farther and farther to find suitable wood for the monumental buildings they wished to create.  It is also thought to have contributed to various natural disasters in and around the capital.  Perhaps Yamato was worried that unrestricted logging in the Home Provinces could likewise cause problems?  Or was that simply an added benefit gained from the idea that mountains were sacred spaces?   Later in the 10th month of 679, there was an edict determining sumptuary rules for monks clothing, as well as what kind of retinue could accompany them when they went out.  We talked about this back in Episode 142.  That same month, there was an edict that, while monks and nuns might normally be expected to stay at a temple—such as in the quarters identified in the ruins of Kawaradera—that it became a problem when older monks became bed-ridden.  After all, if they couldn't leave their bed, then one can only imagine how it must have been.  Not to get overly graphic, but they couldn't exactly make it out to the latrine at that point, either.  So it was determined that if an elderly monk were to reach the stage that they were bed-ridden, and unlikely to recover, then the temple would seek out relatives or laypersons to help build a hut or two in vacant spaces on the temple grounds.  There, the sick and bed-ridden monks could be cared for in a more sanitary manner. Now the way this is written, on the one hand it seems they were worried about ritual purification as much as anything, but I imagine that this was also practical.  After all, as you get all of those monks living together, one can only imagine that disease and illness could easily spread in those close quarters.  So separating those who were quite sick only makes sense, like an early form of quarantine. A lot of these prohibitions seem to be fairly practical.  Don't put traps where people could accidentally fall into them.  Don't chop down the nearby forest—we may need that later.  And even: don't leave a sick or elderly monk in a crowded dormitory situation.But what about the penal codes? If you lived in the latter part of Temmu's reign and you did violate one of the rules mentioned above, or one of the many others at play, what would happen to you, and how did that vary based on your place in society? Unfortunately, most of what we get on this is kind of bare bones.  We often see the punishment, but not t he crime.  We are just told that someone was found guilty, or condemned.  Take, for example, the Buddhist Priest, Fukuyou, of Asukadera, who was condemned and thrown into prison.  We aren't told what he did to deserve confinement, but it wouldn't last long.  Apparently Fukuyou cut his own throat, ending his life, rather than face other consequences or live with the shame of whatever crime he had committed. By the way, the term "prison" here is interesting.  We certainly see people being imprisoned in some way, shape, or form—locked up and unable to freely travel.  That isn't exactly the same, however, as a prison complex or system.  There may have been buildings used a jail—a temporary holding facility while the actual punishment was determined.  And we also see the equivalent of house arrest.  Later, there would be formal "prisons" set up for the detention of individuals, who were often then forced to labor as part of their punishment.  However, they had many other forms of punishment, many of which required much fewer staff.  After all, a prison requires that you have guards constantly watching the prisoners to make sure nothing gets out of hand.  Instead, you could just exile them to an island or even just another province, with a lot less manpower. A less drastic punishment was handed out back in the 4th month of 675, when we are told that Tahema no Kimi no Hiromaro and Kunu no Omi no Maro were both forbidden from attending the court—for what purpose we aren't immediately told.  However, six days later, Kunu no Maro was held accountable for offering resistance to a royal messenger—maybe the one who communicated that he was banished from the court.  As a punishment, he was stripped of all of his offices and dignities.  Both Tahema no Hiromaro and Kunu no Maro appear to have been pardoned at a later date, though we aren't sure when.  It could have been one of the various general amnesties—and we'll talk about that in a moment.  Hiromaro passed away in 685, but he was provided a posthumous promotion in rank and is noted for his efforts supporting Ohoama during the Jinshin no Ran.  Meanwhile, Kunu no Maro—also known as Abe no Kunu no Maro is seen delivering a eulogy in 686.  Perhaps somewhat ironically, he did so on behalf of the Office of Punishments—later the Keimu-shou, or Ministry of Punishment.  These actions certainly seem to be at odds with them being punished, let alone banished from the court. We also see an example where  Prince Womi, who was of the 3rd princely ranks—even higher than Prince Kurikuma, whom we discussed last episode—was guilty of some kind of offense and banished to Inaba.  One of his children was also banished to Izushima and the other to Chikashima.  Aston suggests that this means Ohoshima and Chikashima may be in Hizen.  Again, very little to go on as to what was happening, though it seems that all three were punished together and sent away from each other, perhaps so that they could not plot or scheme together.  Later amnesties would probably have resulted in pardons for them.   Speaking of pardons—the punishments that we are speaking about all appear to be permanent, other than imprisonment, which may have been more of a temporary situation.  It wasn't like being sent away for so many years.  However, on the other side of the coin was the option for a pardon or amnesty.  While I imagine that the sovereign could always provide a pardon directly, we more regularly see general amnesties declared, sometimes with very specific guidelines. One of the most illuminating such instances, and possibly where Kunu no Maro and Tahema no Hiromaro were pardoned, came in the 7th month of 676.  That month the court issued a general amnesty, likely to increase the merit accrued to the State through an act of mercy and forgiveness, given the drought and famine that had been reported earlier that summer.  Perhaps paradoxically, this act of leniency gives us an interesting view into the types of punishments that were made, as well as how severe each was considered.    The amnesty mitigated all sentences of death, enforced servitude, or the three classes of banishment, and they would all be mitigated by one degree.  So anyone sentenced to death would instead just become enslaved.  Those who were sentenced to enslavement would be banished to a distant province.  Those banished to a distant province would only be banished to a province at a medium distance.  Banishment to a medium province would be downgraded to a nearer province.  And Banishment to a nearer province would be downgraded to banishment—or removal—to a place in the same province.  For anyone who committed a crime for which they would be removed to a place in the same province—or for any lesser crime—would be completely pardoned, whether or not the crime was actually known.  So you couldn't be held responsible, retroactively. This gives us a kind of hierarchy to use as far as the kinds of punishment that might be handed out.  Of course, there are also a few others, which I generally assume were considered lesser.  For instance: banishment from the court, or being stripped of government rank, that sort of thing. There was a caveat that this amnesty would not apply to those who had already left for their place of banishment—nor, obviously, to those who had already been executed.  So if you had already settled in to your new life, this amnesty didn't exactly matter.  This could be where Tahema no Hiromaro and Kunu no Maro were pardoned and thus allowed to find their way back into the court's good graces.  On the other hand, others probably wish that this amnesty happened a bit later—one month later, to be exact.  We are told that Prince Yagaki, the current viceroy of the Dazaifu, was accused of some offense and banished to Tosa, in Shikoku.  As usual, the record does not feel the need to tell us what the offense was or try to justify it anyway.   This is all well and good, but what exactly did the justice system look like?  How were criminals accused, and how would they investigate and prove your guilt?  In the 11th month of 682, we see a rather detailed description of how trials and punishment were to be carried out.  For any offense against the law, whether it was in the palace or the court, it would be immediately examined, and nobody was allowed to conceal information about it.  If the offense was grave enough, then the next step would depend on the rank of the individual.  For individuals of high birth, their guilt would be reported to the court, presumably for whatever punishment they deemed appropriate from there.  For others, they would be arrested.  If they resisted arrest, then the palace guards would be sent after them.  A typical punishment was flogging, which was not to go beyond 100 blows.  Finally, if the individual were clearly guilty, but yet continued to profess their innocence, then that would be considered perjury and added to their sentence. It should be noted that in East Asia at this time, there was no concept of innocent until proven guilty.  If you were accused of a crime, then it was up to you to prove that you were innocent.  It was not uncommon for an arrest to occur, and then for the authorities to then torture a confession out of the individual.  Since they already had assumed the individual's guilt, this was just meant to get them to admit it.  Even into modern times, Japan has had a high conviction rate, but there are accusations that this is simply because of the presence of coerced confessions.  A coerced confession helps to demonstrate that the system is correct, and working as designed, whilst protestations of innocence call into question the validity of the system. There is another type of guilt and punishment—and leniency, for that matter—mentioned in the 6th month of 677: We are told that the Yamato no Aya no Atahe were considered guilty of the "seven misdemeanors", which seems like it is more an indictment of their moral failings rather than any kind of direct criminal behavior.  Furthermore, they were accused of pushing back against the rightful sovereigns from the time of Kashikiya Hime down to the time of the Afumi court.  This would seem to indicate that they had been supporting the Soga and the Afumi court, but if so, I wouldn't say that the Chronicles help to clarify it in any way.  Perhaps they just were willful and not showing the right amount of loyalty to the throne.  Whatever they did, Ohoama was none too pleased, but he also didn't want to completely destroy the uji.  Instead, as a compromise, he offered them clemency for any past actions, pardoning them, but also claiming that if they stepped out of line again, then their offense would be unpardonable.  This whole entry is a vibe.  It is less of a punishment and more of a sword of Damocles being set up above them. Several years later, in 682, we see the Yamato no Aya being granted the title of Muraji.  In consequence of the appointment, the entire household—all the men and women alike, presented themselves to the court.  They rejoiced and praised Ohoama, thanking him for raising them in status.  This doesn't feel like a normal entry—it isn't like every family was coming into court and giving thanks every time that a promotion was handed out.  This feels like classic "kissing the ring" to get back into good graces with someone who was, effectively, an autocratic ruler.  While there was a bureaucracy, based on everything we've seen Ohoama had bent it largely to his will by appointing family members and other members of the elite princely class—those with at least nominal familial connections—to positions of power and authority.   And with that, I think we will bring this episode to a close.  Next episode we'll finish out this reign with a few projects and various other miscellaneous events. Until then if you like what we are doing, please tell your friends and feel free to rate us wherever you listen to podcasts.  If you feel the need to do more, and want to help us keep this going, we have information about how you can donate on Patreon or through our KoFi site, ko-fi.com/sengokudaimyo, or find the links over at our main website,  SengokuDaimyo.com/Podcast, where we will have some more discussion on topics from this episode. Also, feel free to reach out to our Sengoku Daimyo Facebook page.  You can also email us at the.sengoku.daimyo@gmail.com.  Thank you, also, to Ellen for their work editing the podcast. And that's all for now.  Thank you again, and I'll see you next episode on Sengoku Daimyo's Chronicles of Japan.  

For more of my latest content, subscribe to my YouTube channel, Dark Asia with Megan and join our awesome community. Your support means everything, and I can't wait to share more Asian cases with you! On Other Platforms: • TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@darkasiawithmegan • Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/darkasiawithmegan • Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/darkasiameganlee Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Masterpiece Podcasts: Collection of Chinese Classic Novels

Americans had established schools, hospitals, and businesses in China prior to the 1949 triumph of the Communists under Mao. What would be the fate of these institutions and their staff under the new dispensation? In his latest research, Dr. Sanjiao Tang, fellow at the National Library of Australia, explores the actions and reactions of Americans facing the advent of the People's Republic of China. Using the DuPont firm as a representative American business of the period, Sanjiao finds that most Americans had a “wait and see” attitude toward Mao's initial triumph. DuPont China only shut down its Shanghai headquarters a year after the Communist victory, doing so shortly before a wave of Anti-American sentiment expropriated the remaining American institutions in China. In support of his research, Dr. Sanjiao received funding from the Center for the History of Business, Technology, and Society at the Hagley Museum and Library. For more information, and more Hagley History Hangouts, visit us online at hagley.org. To make a donation underwriting this program and others like it please visit our Eventbrite page: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/underwriting-donation-tickets-1470779985529?aff=oddtdtcreator

Masterpiece Podcasts: Collection of Chinese Classic Novels

Masterpiece Podcasts: Collection of Chinese Classic Novels

Today, we finish up the 3 part series on Tang Poetry Masters with a look at Du Fu, China's poet historian. The An Lushan Rebellion tore the Tang Dynasty in half and is one of the defining events of Chinese history. Du Fu is pivotal for our memory of that event, as his poems are often how the war is discussed, even today. In today's podcast, we look at two-ish poems that Du Fu wrote about the An Lushan Rebellion and try to better understand Du Fu's life. 

Masterpiece Podcasts: Collection of Chinese Classic Novels

Masterpiece Podcasts: Collection of Chinese Classic Novels

Masterpiece Podcasts: Collection of Chinese Classic Novels

Masterpiece Podcasts: Collection of Chinese Classic Novels

Can you help me make more podcasts? Consider supporting me on Patreon as the service is 100% funded by you: https://EVne.ws/patreon You can read all the latest news on the blog here: https://EVne.ws/blog Subscribe for free and listen to the podcast on audio platforms:➤ Apple: https://EVne.ws/apple➤ YouTube Music: https://EVne.ws/youtubemusic➤ Spotify: https://EVne.ws/spotify➤ TuneIn: https://EVne.ws/tunein➤ iHeart: https://EVne.ws/iheart BYD SHOWS NEW TANG CABIN BEFORE SHENZHEN DEBUT https://evne.ws/4b83avd HUAWEI AND SAIC UNVEIL Z7 AND Z7T https://evne.ws/4rVPdrx SAIC VOLKSWAGEN STARTS EA211 RANGE EXTENDER PRODUCTION https://evne.ws/4l7XpSO LI AUTO TROLLS VW AS RANGE EXTENDER LAUNCHES https://evne.ws/3MYLx9c GAC HYPTEC A800 LAUNCHES WITH 598 HP FLAGSHIP https://evne.ws/3MNUKkF HIMA UPGRADES MAEXTRO S800 AND AITO M9 https://evne.ws/4uacHut CHINA'S EV CHARGING BOOM SHIFTS HOME https://evne.ws/3ONUW3X CANADA OPENS SMALL QUOTA FOR CHINESE EVS https://evne.ws/40MOYTw HONDA TO EXPORT CHINA-BUILT E:NS2 TO JAPAN https://evne.ws/47cTqyy LOTUS REVEALS FOR ME CABIN, SETS 2026 LAUNCH https://evne.ws/4sbrTWZ

Masterpiece Podcasts: Collection of Chinese Classic Novels

Masterpiece Podcasts: Collection of Chinese Classic Novels

Masterpiece Podcasts: Collection of Chinese Classic Novels

Masterpiece Podcasts: Collection of Chinese Classic Novels

Egyptian DJ and producer, MARTINA, stands as part of a new generation of talents who have been actively involved in pushing for an alternative underground electronic scene in Cairo. A member of artist collective, Dhamma, her sets are a patchwork of various sounds and musical styles, going as easily from balie funk to deconstructed club and left-field bass, often, if not always, imbued with punchy edits of Egyptian shaabi or rap bangers. It's like everything, everywhere, all at once, constantly shifting, and chaotic in the best of ways. She has done her rounds at parties across the globe, including the UK, Spain, UAE, and played at Uganda's iconic Nyege Nyege festival, and XP Music Futures in Saudi Arabia. Her sets have been aired on international radio stations, such as Stegi Radio and Echobox. Additionally, MARTINA has previously contributed an original track to ZULI's Places: Egypt compilation on Air Texture, and co-produced records with electroneya for Barcelona-based Le Shapeshifters, along with composing music for the Egyptian comedy ‘The Gentlemen'. For our Select 378, she steps in with an open-format radio set that drifts away from her usual club selections to explore heavy, distorted, bass-driven music and abrasive noise, interspersed with flourishes of soothing ambient pads. The set opens with a gritty edit of Grimes' Genesis, ending with one of her original productions, Forever, and featuring a premiere of an unreleased joint track with London producer 3xoj, titled ‘TANG'. Speaking of the set, MARTINA says, “This is a set for anyone who feels angry at the world but still holds a little bit of hope.”

The next era of luxury growth will be selective, elevated, and culture-led. Derek Sulger, Chairman of luxury retailer Shanghai Tang, joins WARC's Jenny Chan to discuss how luxury has shifted from product ownership to lived experiences, and what it takes to build fashion, dining, and hospitality ecosystems that resonate.

Une terrifiante vengeance. A l'été 1996, c'est comme cela que les gendarmes de l'Ain présentent le double meurtre de Jean-François Virey et de son épouse. Un couple amoureux, tous deux divorcés, un homme et une femme qui a la quarantaine refaisaient leur vie avec un bonheur affiché. Sur la route qui mène à Bourg-en-Bresse, les enquêteurs vont être abasourdis par la vision qui s'offre à eux. Un crime qui touche à la pure et simple barbarie. Tellement stupéfiant qu'on va penser à un acte qui remonte à la nuit des temps.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

À Pékin, un artisanat vieux de plus de deux siècles est aujourd'hui classé patrimoine culturel immatériel. Les lanternes de palais, autrefois réservées aux cours impériales, sont toujours fabriquées à la main, mais par une poignée d'artisans vieillissants. Les lanternes de la place Tiananmen viennent d'un petit atelier situé en plein cœur de la capitale. Entre transmission fragile et attachement populaire, reportage sur une tradition qui tente de survivre. De notre envoyée spéciale à Pékin, À Pékin, certaines lumières viennent de très loin dans le temps. Elles éclairaient autrefois les palais impériaux. Aujourd'hui, elles pendent encore dans quelques maisons et dans un atelier, où presque plus personne ne sait les fabriquer. Tang, thé au jasmin entre ses mains burinées, nous reçoit dans la pièce maîtresse de l'atelier. Il nous montre une lanterne.  « L'hexagone au milieu, c'est le modèle traditionnel de lanterne de palais. Elle est entièrement sculptée dans du bois de rose massif et elle représente deux dragons jouant avec une perle. Dans le passé, dans les anciennes cours impériales, toutes les lanternes suspendues étaient de ce type. Elles symbolisaient le luxe, la richesse », décrit le vieil homme.  Pendant des siècles, ces lanternes indiquaient le statut social d'une personne. Ici, chaque pièce est sculptée et assemblée à la main, un travail long et minutieux. « C'est un métier délicat qui demande beaucoup de savoir-faire. Nous avons été officiellement désignés comme patrimoine culturel immatériel. Ce que nous fabriquons appartient à ces anciennes traditions, et nous ne pouvons pas les laisser disparaître. Tous ces anciens métiers artisanaux de Pékin, pour être honnête, ont pratiquement disparu. Quand on en arrive là, c'est la fin », se désole notre hôte. Un savoir-faire protégé Aujourd'hui, ce savoir-faire est officiellement protégé. Mais dans l'atelier, ce sont aussi les artisans qui disparaissent, comme nous l'explique l'un des derniers d'entre eux, Liu, âgé de 78 ans : « Il n'y a pas d'employés officiels dans cet atelier. Tout le monde est à la retraite. Même les plus jeunes ont déjà plus de soixante ans et ils continuent à venir ici pour travailler. L'industrie artisanale reste un secteur assez difficile. Les jeunes n'aiment pas faire ce genre de travail. » C'est un métier exigeant et difficile à transmettre. Et pourtant, les lanternes continuent d'être achetées. Pour la fête des lanternes, cette acheteuse choisit le bois. « C'est pour le Nouvel An. Pour ma maison, je veux quelque chose de meilleure qualité qui puisse être accroché plus longtemps. Même si les décorations en plastique sont jolies, elles ne dureront pas », nous dit-elle.  Liu souligne qu'à présent, dans les appartements modernes, ces lanternes n'éclairent plus des empereurs, mais des repas de famille : « Beaucoup de gens qui achètent des lanternes aujourd'hui cherchent ce sentiment de nostalgie, ce lien émotionnel. C'est ce qui compte. ».  Les lanternes de palais ont traversé les dynasties, les révolutions, les transformations de la ville. Aujourd'hui, leur avenir dépend de deux choses : des mains qui savent encore les fabriquer et des maisons qui choisissent encore de les accrocher. 

VOV1 - Ngay sau thông báo của truyền thông nhà nước Iran về việc Đại giáo chủ Ali Khamenei thiệt mạng, Vệ binh Cách mạng Hồi giáo Iran đã ra tuyên bố, thề báo thù cho cái chết của ông.

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I welcome you to Episode 172 of our podcast IP Fridays. Today's interview guests are Co-Founder & CEO of Inception Point AI, Jeanine Whright, and Mark Stignani, who is Partner & Chair of Analytics Practice at Barnes & Thornburg LLP. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeaninepercivalwright https://www.linkedin.com/in/markstignani Inception Point AI But before the interview I have news for you: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled on Feb 19, 2026, that specialized insurance can cover security for legal costs. This is vital for firms, as it eases litigation financing and lowers financial hurdles for patent lawsuits by removing the need for high liquid assets to enforce rights at the UPC. On Feb 12, 2026, the WIPO Coordination Committee nominated Daren Tang for a second six-year term as Director General. Tang continues modernizing the global IP system, focusing on SMEs, women, and digital transformation. His confirmation in April is considered certain. An AAFA study from Feb 4 reveals 41% of tested fakes (clothing/shoes) failed safety standards. Many contained toxic chemicals like phthalates, BPA, or lead. The study highlights that counterfeiters increasingly use Meta platforms to sell unsafe imitations directly to consumers. China's CNIPA 2026 report announced a crackdown on bad-faith patent and trademark filings. Beyond better examination quality, the agency will sanction shady IP firms and stop strategies violating “good faith” to make China’s IP system more ethical and innovation-friendly. Now, let's hear the interview with Jeanine Whright and Mark Stignani! How AI Is Rewiring Media & Entertainment: Key Takeaways from Ken Suzan's Conversation with Jeanine Wright and Mark Stignani In this IP Fridays interview, Ken Suzan speaks with two repeat guests who look at the same phenomenon from two angles: Jeanine Wright, Co-Founder & CEO of Inception Point AI, as a builder of AI-native entertainment, and Mark Stignani, Partner and Chair of the Analytics Practice at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, as a lawyer advising clients who are trying to use AI without stepping into a legal (or ethical) crater. What emerges is a clear picture: generative AI is not just “another tool.” It is rapidly becoming the default infrastructure for creative work—while the rules around ownership, consent, and accountability lag behind. 1) What “AI-generated personalities” really are (and why that matters) Jeanine's company is not primarily “cloning” real people. Instead, Inception Point AI creates original, fictional personalities—characters with backstories, ambitions, and evolving arcs—then deploys them into the world as podcast hosts and content creators (and eventually actors and musicians). Her key point: the creative work still starts with humans. Writers and creators define the concept, tone, audience, and story engine. What AI changes is speed, cost, and iteration—and therefore what is economically feasible to produce. 2) The “generative content pipeline” isn't a magic button A recurring misconception Ken raises is the idea that someone “pushes a button” and content pops out. Jeanine explains that real production looks more like a hybrid studio: A creative team defines character, voice, format, and storyline. A technical team builds what she calls an “AI orchestration layer” that combines multiple models and tools. The “stack” differs by format: the workflow for a long-form audio drama is different from a short-form beauty clip. This matters because it reframes AI content not as a single output, but as a pipeline decision: which tools, which data sources, which QA, and which governance steps are used—and where human review happens. 3) The biggest legal questions: origin, liability, ownership, and contracts Mark doesn't name a single “top issue.” He describes a cluster of problems that repeatedly show up in client conversations: Training data and “origin story” Clients keep asking: Can I legally use AI output if the tool was trained on copyrighted works? Even if the output looks new, the unease is about whether the tool's capabilities are built on unlicensed inputs. Liability for unintended harm Mark flags risk from AI content that inadvertently infringes, defames, or carries bias. The legal exposure may not match the creator's intent. Ownership and protectability He points to a big gap: many jurisdictions are still reluctant to grant classic IP rights (copyright or patent-style protection) to purely AI-generated material. That creates uncertainty around whether businesses can truly “own” what they produce. Old contracts weren't written for AI A final, practical point: many agreements—talent contracts, author clauses, data licenses—predate generative AI and simply don't address it. That leads to disputes about scope, permissions, and—crucially—indemnities. 4) Are we at a tipping point? The “gold rush” vs. “next creative era” views Jeanine frames AI as “the world's most powerful creative tool”—comparable to previous step-changes like animation, special effects, and CGI. For her, the strategic implication is simple: creators who learn to use AI well will expand what they can build and test, faster than ever. Mark's metaphor is more cautionary: he calls the moment a “gold rush” where technology is sprinting ahead of law. Courts are getting flooded with foundational disputes, while legislation is fragmented—he notes that states may move faster than federal frameworks, and that labor agreements (e.g., union protections) will be a key pressure point. 5) Democratization: more creators, more niche content, more experimentation One of the most concrete themes is access. Jeanine argues AI will: Lower production barriers for independent filmmakers and storytellers. Reduce the need for “hit-making only” economics that dominate Hollywood. Make micro-audience content commercially viable. Her example is intentionally niche: highly localized, specialized content (like a “pollen report” for many markets) that would never have made financial sense before can now exist—and thrive—because the production cost drops and personalization scales. 6) Likeness, consent, and “digital performers”: what happens when AI resembles a real actor? Ken pushes into a sensitive area: what if someone generates a performance that closely resembles a living actor without consent? Mark outlines the current (imperfect) toolbox—because, as he emphasizes, most laws weren't built for this scenario. He points to practical claims that may come into play in the U.S., such as rights of publicity and false endorsement-type theories, and notes that whether something is parody or “too close” can become a major fault line. Jeanine explains her company's operational approach: They focus on original personalities, designed “from scratch.” They build internal checks to avoid misappropriating known names, likenesses, or recognizable identities. If they ever work with real people, the model would be licensing their likeness/voice. A subtle but important business point also appears here: Jeanine expects AI-native characters themselves to become licensable assets—meaning the entertainment economy may expand to include “celebrity rights” for fully synthetic personalities. 7) Ethics: the real line is “deception,” not “AI vs. human” The ethical core of the conversation is not “AI is bad” or “AI is good.” It's how AI is used—especially whether audiences are misled. Mark highlights several ethical risks: Misuse of tools to manipulate faces and content (“AI slop” and political misuse). Displacement of creative workers without adequate transition support. A concern that AI often optimizes toward “statistical averages,” potentially flattening originality. Jeanine agrees ethics must be designed into the system. She describes regular discussions with an ethicist and emphasizes a principle: transparency. Her company discloses when content or personalities are AI-generated. She argues that if people understand what they're engaging with and choose it knowingly, the ethical problem shifts from “AI exists” to “Are we tricking people?” Mark adds a real-world warning: deepfakes are now credible enough to enable serious fraud—he references a case-like scenario where a synthetic video meeting deceived an employee into authorizing a payment. The point is clear: authenticity and verification are no longer optional. 8) The “dead actor” hypothetical: legal permission vs. moral intent Ken raises a provocative scenario: an actor's estate authorizes an AI-generated new performance, but the actor opposed such technology while alive. Neither guest offers a simplistic answer. Jeanine suggests that even if the estate holds legal rights, a company might choose to avoid such content out of respect and because the ethical “overhang” could damage the storytelling outcome. She also notes the harder question: people who died before today's capabilities may never have been able to meaningfully consent to what AI can now do—raising questions about how we interpret legacy intent. Mark underscores the practical contract problem: many rights are drafted “in perpetuity,” but that doesn't automatically settle the ethical question. 9) Five-year forecast: “AI everywhere,” but audiences may stratify Ken closes with a prediction question: in five years, how much entertainment content will significantly involve AI—and will audiences care? Jeanine predicts AI becomes the default creative layer for most content creation. Mark is slightly more conservative on the percentage, but adds an important nuance: the market will likely stratify. Low-cost, high-volume content may become saturated with AI, while premium segments may emphasize “human-made” as a differentiator—especially if disclosure norms become standard. Bottom line for business leaders and creators This interview lands on a pragmatic conclusion: AI will change how content is made at scale, and the competitive edge will go to teams that combine creative taste, operational discipline, and legal/ethical governance. If you're building, commissioning, or distributing content, the questions you can't dodge anymore are: What's the provenance of the tools and data you rely on? Who is responsible when output harms, infringes, or misleads? What rights can you actually claim in AI-assisted work? Do your contracts and disclosures match the new reality? Ken Suzan: Thank you, Rolf. We have two returning guests to the IP Friday’s podcast. Joining me today is Janine Wright and Mark Stignani. Our topic for discussion, how is AI transforming the media and entertainment industries today? We look at the issues from differing perspectives. A bit about our guests, Janine Wright is a seasoned board member, CEO, global COO and CFO. She’s led organizations from startup to a $475 million plus revenue subsidiary of a public company. She excels in growth strategy, adopting innovative technologies, scaling operations and financial management. Janine is a media and entertainment attorney and trial litigator turned technologist and qualified financial expert. She is the co-founder and CEO of Inception Point AI, a growing company that is paving new ground with AI-generated personalities and content through developing technology and story. Mark Stignani is a partner with Barnes & Thornburg LLP and is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is the chair of the data analytics department with a particular emphasis on artificial intelligence, machine learning, cryptocurrency and ESG. Mark combines the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning with his skills as a corporate and IP counsel to deliver unparalleled insights and strategies to his clients. Welcome, Janine and Mark to the IP Friday’s podcast. Jeanine Whright: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me and fun to be back. It feels nostalgic to be here. Ken Suzan: That’s right. And you both were on the program. So it’s fantastic that you’re both back again. So our format, I’m going to ask a question to Janine and or Mark and sometimes to both of you. So that’s going to be how we proceed. Let’s jump right in. Janine, your company creates AI-generated actors. For listeners who may not be familiar, can you briefly explain what that means and what’s now possible that wasn’t even two years ago? Jeanine Whright: Sure. Yeah, we are creating AI-generated personalities. So new characters, new personalities from scratch. We design who these personalities are and will be, how they will evolve. So we give them complex backstories. We give them hopes and dreams and aspirations. We every aspect of them, their families, how they’re going to evolve. And in the same way that, say, you know, Disney designs the character for its next animated feature or, you know, an electronic arts designs a character for its next major video game. We are doing that for these personalities and then we are launching them into the world as podcast hosts, content creators on social platforms like YouTube, Instagram and TikTok. And even in the future, you know, actors in feature length films, musicians, etc. Ken Suzan: Very fascinating. Mark, from your practice, what’s the single biggest legal question or dispute you’re seeing clients wrestle with when it comes to AI and media creation? Mark Stignani: Well, I think that, you know, it’s not just one thing, it’s like four things. But most of them tend to be kind of the origin story of AI data or AI tools that they use because, you know, but for the use of AI tools trained on copyrighted materials, the tools wouldn’t really exist in their current form. So a lot of my clients are wondering about, you know, can I legally use this output if it’s built upon somebody else’s IP? The second ask, the second flavor of that is really, is there liability being created if I take AI content that inadvertently infringes or defames or biases there? So there’s the whole notion of training bias from the training materials that comes out. The third phase is really, you know, can I really own this? Because much of the world does not really give IP rights into AI-generated inventions, copyrighted materials. It’s still kind of a big razor. Then at the end of the day, you know, if it’s an existing relationship, does my contract even contemplate this? So everything from authors contracts on up to just use of data rights that predate AI. Ken Suzan: And Janine and Mark, a question to both of you. How would you describe where we are right now in the AI revolution in media and entertainment? Are we approaching a tipping point? And if so, what are the things we need to watch for? Jeanine Whright: Yeah, I definitely think that we’re at a phase where people are starting to come to the realization that AI is the world’s most powerful creative tool. But that, you know, storytelling and point of view is what creates demand and audiences. And AI doesn’t threaten or change that. But it does mean that as people evolve in this medium, they’re very likely going to need to adopt, utilize and figure out how to hone their craft with these AI-generated content and these AI-generated toolings. So this is, you know, something that people have done certainly in the past in all sorts of ways in using new tools. And we’ve seen that make a significant change in the industry. So you look at, you know, the dawn of animation as a medium. You look at use of special effects, computer-generated imagery in the likes of Pixar. And this is certainly the next phase of that evolution. But because of the power of the tool and what will become the ubiquity of the tool, I think that it’s pretty revolutionary and all the more necessary for people to figure out how to embrace this as part of their creative process. Ken Suzan: Thank you, Janine. Mark, your thoughts? Mark Stignani: Yeah, I mean, I liken this to historically to like the California gold rush right now, because, you know, the technology is so far outpaced in any of the legal frameworks that are available. And so we’re just trying to shoehorn things in left and right here. So, I mean, the courts are beginning to start to engage with the foundational questions. I don’t think they’re quite there yet. I just noticed Anthropic got sued again by another group of people, big music group, because of the downloaded works they’ve done. I mean, so the courts are, you know, the courts are certainly inundated with, you know, too many of these foundational questions. Legislatively, hard to tell. I mean, federal law, the federal government is not moving uniformly on this other than to let the gold rush continue without much check and balance to it. Whereas states are now probably moving a lot faster. Colorado, Illinois, even Minnesota is attempting to craft legislation and limitations on what you can do with content and where to go with it. So, I mean, the things we need to watch for any of the fair use decisions coming out here, you know, some of the SAG-AFTRA contract clauses. And, you know, again, the federal government, I just, you know, I got a big shrug going as to what they’re actually going to come up with here in the next 90 to 100 days. So, but, you know, I think they’ll be forced into doing something sooner than later. Ken Suzan: Okay, let’s jump into the topic of the rise of generative content pipelines. My first question to Janine. Studios and production companies are now building what some call generative content pipelines. This is where AI systems produce everything from scripts to visual effects to voice performances. What efficiencies and creative possibilities does this unlock for the industry? Jeanine Whright: Yeah, so this is quite a bit of what we do. And if I could help pull the curtain back and explain a little bit. Ken Suzan: That’d be great. Jeanine Whright: Yeah, there’s this assumption that, you know, somebody is just sitting behind a machine pushing a button and an out pops, you know, what it is that we’re producing. There’s actually quite a bit of humans still in the loop in the process. You know, we have my team as creators. The other half of my team is the technologists. And those creators are working largely at what we describe as the the tip of the sphere. So they’re, of course, coming up with the concepts of who are these personalities? What are these personalities, characters, backgrounds going to be a lot of like rich personality development? And then they’re creating like what are the formats? What are the kind of story arcs? What is the kinds of content that this this character wants to tell? And what are the audiences they’re desiring to reach and what’s most going to resonate with them? And then what we built internally is what we refer to as an AI orchestration layer. So that allows us to pull from basically all of the different models and then all of these different really cool AI tools. And put those together in such a way and combine those in such a way that we can have the kind of output that our creative team envisions for what they want it to be. And at the end of the day, what you what the stack looks like for, say, a long form audio drama, like the combination of LLMs that we’re going to use in different parts of scripting and production and, you know, ideating and all of that. And the kinds of tooling that we use to actually make it and get it to sound good and have the kinds of personality characteristics that we want to be in an authentic voice for a podcast is going to be different than the tech stack and the tool stack that we might use for a short form Instagram beauty tip reel. And so there’s a lot of art in being able to pull all of these tools together to get them to do exactly what you want them to do. But I think the second part of your question is just as interesting as the first. I mean, what is what possibilities is this unlocking? So of course you’re finding efficiencies in the creative production process. You can move faster. You can do things were less expensive, perhaps, and you were able to do it before. But on the creator side, I think one thing that hasn’t been talked about enough is how it is really like blown wide the aperture of what creators can do and can envision. Traditionally, you know, Hollywood podcasting, many of these businesses that become big businesses have become hit making businesses where they need to focus on a very narrow of wide gen pop content that they think is going to get tens of millions, hundreds of millions in, you know, fans and dollars in revenue for every piece of content that they make. So the problem with that is, is that it really narrows the kinds of things that ultimately get made, which is why you see things happening in Hollywood, like the Blacklist, which is, you know, this famous list of really exceptional content that remains unpredited, unproduced, or why you see things like, you know, 70 to 80% of the top 100 movies being based on pre-existing IP, right? Because these are such huge bets that you need to feel very confident that you’re going to be able to get big, big audiences and big, big dollars from it. But with AI, and really lowering the barrier to entry, lowering the costs of production and marketing, the experimentation that you can do is really, really phenomenal. So, you know, my creative team, if they have an idea, they make it, you know, they don’t have to wring their hands through like a green lighting process of, you know, should we, shouldn’t we, like we, we can make an experiment with lots of different things, we can do various different versions of something. We can see what would this look like if I placed it in the 1800s, or what if I gave this character an Australian accent, and it’s just the power of being able to have this creative partner that can ideate with you and experiment with you at rocket speed. With the creators that are embracing it, you can see how it is really fun for them to be able to have this wide of a range of possibility. Ken Suzan: Mark, when you hear about these generative pipelines, what are the immediate red flags or concerns that come to mind from a legal standpoint? How about ethics underlying all of this? Well, Mark Stignani: that was not, that’s the number one red flag because I mean, we are seeing not just that in the entertainment industry, but it literally at political levels, and the kind of the phrase, to turn the phrase AI slop being generated, we’re seeing, you know, people’s facial expressions altered. In some cases, we’re seeing AI tools being misused to exploit various groups of individuals and genders and age groups. So I mean, there’s a whole lot of things ethically that people are using AI for that just don’t quite cover it. Especially in the entertainment industry, I mean, we’re looking at a fair amount of displacement of human workers without adequate transition support, devaluation of the creative labor. I mean, the thing though that I’m always from a technical standpoint is AI is simply a statistical average of most everything. So it kind of devalues the benefit of having a human creator, a human contribution to it. That’s the ethical side. But on the legal side, I see chain of title issues. I mean, because these are built on very questionable IP ownership stages, I mean, in most of these tools, there has been some large copying, training and taking of copyrighted materials. Is it transformational? Maybe. But there’s certainly not a chain of title, nor is there permission granted for that training. I mentioned SAG-AFTRA earlier, I think there’s a potential set of union contract aspects to this that if you know many of these agreements and use sub-licenses for authors and actor agreements, they weren’t written with AI in mind. So that’s another red flag. And also I just think in indemnification. So if we ultimately get to a point where groups are liable for using content without previous license, then who’s liable? Is the tool maker the liable group or the actual end user? So those are probably my top four red flags. But I think ethics is probably my biggest place because just because we can do something from an ethical standpoint doesn’t mean we should. Jeanine Wright: Yeah, if I can respond to both of those points. I mean, one from a legal perspective, just to be very clear, I mean, we are always pulling from multiple different models and always pulling from multiple different sources. And we even have data sources that we license or use for single source of truth on certain pieces of information. So we’re always pulling things together from multiple different sources. We also have built into our process, you know, internal QAing and checking to make sure that we’re not misappropriating the name or likeness of any existing known personality or character. We are creating original personalities there. We design their voice from scratch. We design their look from scratch. So we’re not on our personality side, we’re not pulling or even taking inspiration from existing intellectual property that’s already out there in creating these personalities. On the ethical side, I agree. I mean, when we came out of stealth, we came out of stealth in September. There was certainly quite a bit of backlash from folks in my—I previously co-founded a company in the audio space. I mean, there’s been many rounds of layoffs in audio and in many other parts of the entertainment industry. So I’m very sensitive to the feedback around, like, is this job displacement? I mean, I do think that the CEO of NVIDIA said it right when he said, you’re likely not going to lose your job to AI, but you will lose your job to somebody who knows how to use AI. I think these tools are transforming the way that content is made and that the faster that people can embrace this tooling, the more likely they’re going to be having the kinds of roles that they want in, you know, in content creation and storytelling in the future. And we are hiring. I’m hiring AI video creators, AI audio creators. I’m hiring AI developers. So people who are looking for those roles, I mean, please reach out to me, we would love to work with you and we’d love to grow with you. We also take the ethics very seriously. For the last few months or so, I’ve met regularly with an ethicist, we talk about all sorts of issues around, you know, is designing AI-generated people, you know, good for humanity? And what about authenticity and transparency and deception, and how are we in building in this space going to avoid some of the problems that we’ve seen with things like social media and other forms of technology? So we keep that very top of mind and we try to build on our own internal values-based system and, you know, continue to elevate and include the humanity as part of the conversation. Ken Suzan: Thank you, Janine. Janine, some argue that AI content pipelines will level the field for filmmaking, giving independent creators access to tools that were once available only to major studios. Is that the future you envision? Jeanine Wright: I do think that with AI you will see an incredible democratization of access to technology and access to these capabilities. So I do think, you know, rise of independent filmmakers, you won’t have as many people who are sitting on a brilliant idea for the next fantastic script or movie that just cannot get it made because they will be able to with these tools, get something made and out there, at least to get the attention of somebody who could then decide that they want to invest in it at a studio kind of level in the future. The other thing that I think is really interesting is that I think, you know, AI will empower more niche content and more creators who can thrive in micro-communities. So it used to be because of this hit generation business model, everything needed to be made for the masses and a lot of content for niche audiences and micro-communities was neglected because there was just no way to make that content commercially viable. But now, if you can leverage AI—we make a pollen report podcast in 300 markets, you know, nobody would have ever made that before, but it is very valuable information, a very valuable piece of content for people who really care about the pollen in their local community. So there’s all sorts of ways that being able to leverage AI is making it more accessible both to the creator and to the audience that is looking for content that truly resonates with them. Ken Suzan: Mark, let’s talk about the legal landscape right now. If someone creates an AI-generated performance that closely resembles a living actor without their consent, what legal recourse does that actor have? Mark Stignani: Well, I mean, I think we can go back to the OpenAI Scarlett Johansson thing where, you know, if it’s simply—well, the “walks like a duck, quacks like a duck” type of aspect there. You know, I think it’s pretty straightforward that they need to walk it back. I mean, the US doesn’t have moral rights, really, but there’s a public visage right, if you will. And so, one of the things that I find predominantly useful here is that these actors likely have rights of publicity there, we probably have a Lanham Act false endorsement claim, and you know, again, if the performance is not parody, and it’s so close to the original performance, we probably have a copyright discussion. But again, all of these laws predate the use of AI, so we’re going to probably see new sets of law. I mean, we’re probably going to see “resurrection” frameworks, we’ll probably have frameworks for synthetic actors and likenesses, but the rules just aren’t there yet. So, unfortunately, your question is largely predictive versus well-settled at this point. Ken Suzan: Janine, your company works with AI actors. How do you navigate the questions of consent and likeness compensation when creating digital performers? Jeanine Wright: I mean, if we—so first of all, if we were to work with a person who is an existing real-life person or was an existing real-life person, then we would work with them to license their name and likeness or their voice or whatever aspects of it we were going to use in creating content in partnership with them. Not typically our business model; we are, as I said, designing all of our personalities from scratch and making all of our content originally. So, we’ve not had to do that historically. Now, you know, the flip side is: can I license my characters as if they’re similar to living characters? Like will I be able to license the name and likeness and voice of my AI-generated personalities? I think the answer is yes and we’re already starting to do that. Ken Suzan: Let’s just switch gears into ethics and AI because I find this to be a really fascinating issue. I want to look at a hypothetical. And this is to both of you, Janine and Mark: an AI system creates a new performance by a beloved actor who passed away decades ago, and the actor’s estate authorizes it, but the actor was known to have expressed opposition to such technology during their lifetime. Is this ethical? Jeanine Wright: This feels like a Gifts, Wills, and Trusts exam question. Ken Suzan: It sounds like it, that’s right. Jeanine Wright: Throwing me back to my law school days. Exactly. What are your thoughts? It’d be interesting to see like who has the rights there. I mean, I think if you have the legal rights, the question is around, you know, is it ethical to go against what you knew was somebody’s wishes at the time? I guess the honest answer is I don’t know. It would depend a lot on the circumstances of the case. I mean, if we were faced with a situation like that where there was a discrepancy, we would probably move away from doing that content out of respect for the deceased and out of a feeling that, you know, if this person felt strongly against it, then it would be less likely that you could make that storytelling exceptional in some way—it would color it in a way that you wouldn’t want in the outcome. And I feel like there’s—I mean, certainly going forward and it’s already happening—there are plenty of people I think who have name, likeness, and voice rights that they are ready to license that wouldn’t have this overhang. Ken Suzan: Mark, your thoughts? Mark Stignani: Yeah, I mean, again, I have to kind of go back to our property law—the Rule Against Perpetuities. You know, from a property standpoint to AI rights and likenesses—since most of the digital replica contracts that I’ve reviewed generally do talk about things in perpetuity. But if it’s not written down for that actor and the estate is doing this—is it ethical? You know, that is the debate. Jeanine Wright: Well, gold star to you, Mark, for bringing up the Rule Against Perpetuities. There’s another one that I haven’t heard for many years. This is really taking me back to my law school days. Ken Suzan: It’s a throwback. Jeanine Wright: The other thing that’s really interesting is that this technology is really so revolutionary and new that it’s hard to even contemplate now what it is going to be in a decade, much less for people who have passed away to have contemplated what the potential for it could be today. So you could have somebody who is, perhaps, a deceased musician who expressed concerns about digital representations of themselves or digital music while they were alive. But now, the possibility is that you could recreate—certainly I could use my technology to recreate—that musician from scratch in a very detailed way, trained on tons of different available data. Not just like a digital twin or a moving image of them, but to really rebuild their personality from scratch, so that they and their music could be reintroduced to totally new generations in a very respectful and authentic way to them. It’s hard to know, with the understanding that that is possible, whether or not somebody who is deceased today would or would not agree to something like that. I mean, many of them might want, under those circumstances, for their music to live on. These deceased actors and musicians could live forever with the power of AI technology. Mark Stignani: Yeah, I really just kind of go to the whole—is deep-faking a famous actor the best way to preserve them or keep them live? Again, that’s a bit more of an ethical question because the deep fakes are getting good enough right now to create huge problems. Even zoom meetings in Hong Kong where a CFO was on a call with five synthetic actors who all looked like his coworkers and they sent a big check out based upon that. So again, the technology is getting good enough to fool people. Jeanine Wright: I think that’s right, Mark, but I guess I would just highlight the same way that it always has been: the ethical line isn’t AI versus human, the ethical line is about deception. Like, are you deceiving people? And if people know what it is that they’re getting and they’re choosing to engage with it, then I think it isn’t about the power of the technology. In our business, we have elected—not everybody has—but we have elected to be AI transparent. So we tell people when they listen to our show, we include it in our show notes, we include it on our socials. Even when we’re designing our characters to be very photo-realistic, we make an extra point to make sure that people know that this is AI-generated content or an AI personality. Like, our intention is not to deceive and to be candid. From a business model perspective, we don’t need to. I mean, there’s already people who know and understand that it is AI, and AI is different than people. Because it is AI, there’s all sorts of things that you can do with it that you would not be able to do with a real person. You know, we get people who ask us on the podcast side, we get all sorts of crazy funny requests. You know, people who say, “Can I text with this personality? Can I talk to them on the phone? Can they help me cook in the kitchen? Can they sing me Happy Birthday? Can they show up at my Zoom meeting today because I think my boss would love it?” You know, all sorts of different ways that people are wanting to engage with these characters. And now we’re in the process of rolling out real-time personalities so people will be able to engage with our personalities live. It is a totally different way that people are able to engage with content, and people can, as they choose, decide what kind of content they want to engage with. Ken Suzan: Jeanine and Mark, we’re coming to the end of this podcast. I would love to keep talking for hours but we have to stay to our timetable here. Last question: five years from now, what percentage of entertainment content do you predict will involve significant AI generation, and will audiences care about that percentage? Jeanine? Jeanine Wright: I mean, I would say 99.9%. I mean, already you’re seeing—I think YouTube did a survey—that it was like 90% of its top creators said that they’re using AI as material components of their content creation process. So, I think this will be the default way that content is created. And content that is not made with AI, you know, there’ll be special film festivals for non-AI generated content, and that will be a special separate thing than the thing that everybody is doing now. Ken Suzan: Mark, your thoughts? Mark Stignani: Yeah, I go a little lower. I mean, I think Jeanine is right that we’re seeing, especially in the low-quality content creation and like the YouTube shorts and things like that, you know, there’s so much AI being pushed forward that the FTC even acquired an “AI slop” title to it. I do think that disclosure will become normalized, that the industries will be pushed to say when something is AI and what is not. And I think it’s very much like, you know, do you care about quality or not? If you value the human input or the human factor in this, there will be an upper tier where it’s “AI-free” or low AI assistant. I think that it’s going to stratify because the stuff coming through the social media platforms right now—I can’t be on it right now just because there’s so much nonsense. Even my children, who are without much AI training at all, find it just too unbelievable for them. So, I think it will become normalized, but I think that we’re going to see a bunch of tiers. Ken Suzan: Well, Jeanine and Mark, this has been a fantastic discussion of an ever-evolving field in IP law. Thank you to both of you for spending time with us today on the IP Friday’s podcast. Jeanine Wright: Thank you so much for having me. Mark Stignani: Appreciate your time. Thank you again.

Dit keer bespreken we de strijd om de digitale macht. In Europa zijn we bijna volledig afhankelijk van Amerikaanse en Chinese technologie en daarover zijn nu grote zorgen. Want wat als Trump en XI dit (vaker) gaan inzetten als geopolitiek wapen in deze nieuwe wereldorde? In Brussel groeit de roep om digitale soevereiniteit. Maar zijn er wel Europese alternatieven voor Google, Amazon, Microsoft en AI? En welke moeilijke keuzes moeten we maken om op eigen benen te staan? Annette van Soest en Stefan de Vries bespreken het vanuit een uitverkocht Nieuwspoort met Haroon Sheikh, filosoof en hoogleraar Strategic Governance of Global Technologies. Tips en verwijzingen uit deze aflevering: - Annette tipt ‘Kappa' van de Japanse schrijver Akutagawahttps://www.luddites.be/kappa.... - Stefan raadt ‘Ijs' van Marco Tedesto aan https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/f/ij... - Haroon tipt ‘​The Future of Collaborative Technology and Democracy' van A. Tang​ en G. Weyl: Plurality https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/f/pl... Annette van Soest is host van Café Europa en presentator voor o.a. Haagsch College en omroep HUMAN. Stefan de Vries is Europa-verslaggever voor o.a. Pauw & de Wit, BNR en vaste duider voor Café Europa Haroon Sheikh is senior wetenschapper bij de WRR en bijzonder hoogleraar Strategic Governance of Global Technologies aan de VU De podcast Café Europa is een initiatief van Haagsch College en Studio Europa Maastricht Deze podcast wordt mede mogelijk gemaakt door Nieuwspoort.

On this episode, we dive into the intriguing and death defying life of Lang Tang. Lang tells his story about living in the jungles of Vietnam, becoming a monk, surviving the killing fields of Cambodia on multiple occasions, to eventually landing in NW Arkansas and running a donut shop. If you are as fascinated with Lang's story as we were, be sure to pick up his book "Hold Fast." #cambodia #northwestarkansas #donuts #killingfields

Sports betting analyst Kelly in Vegas joins the show to react to the headline-grabbing comments from K-State head coach Jerome Tang, who said he was “hired to be fired.” What did he mean by it — brutal honesty, calculated motivation, or a sign of mounting pressure in Manhattan? We dive into the expectations surrounding the Kansas State Wildcats, how quickly momentum can shift in today's college basketball landscape, and whether Tang's candid remark reflects confidence or concern. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

GoPowercat managing editor Ryan Gilbert teams up with former Kansas State point guards Clent Stewart, as well as former K-State players Curtis Kelly, Jordan Henriquez and Martavious Irving join the Clent Stewart Show! These Wildcat legends offer their thoughts on the firing of Jerome Tang and the state of K-State basketball. Are you enjoying our free video coverage of the Wildcats? Lock in at GoPowercat with a VIP subscription and unlock everything we have to offer. Our premium message board — Wabash Station — is a fan-favorite, as K-State nation joins together with non-stop discussion, debates and banter. Whether you want to join in on the action and post your thoughts on a daily basis or just sit back and see what people are saying, everyone has a place on Wabash Station. With premium scoop from our staff members, along with constant recruiting updates, Wabash Station is the place to be. But gaining access to Wabash Station only scratches the surface. While some articles are free, a good chunk of our written content is available exclusively for VIPs at GoPowercat. Whether it's top-notch breakdowns or unfiltered analysis, our VIP articles offer insight found nowhere else. Longtime publisher Tim Fitzgerald has assembled a one-of-a-kind crew. His right-hand man, Ryan Gilbert, serves as managing editor, overseeing the day-to-day operations on the site. Recruiting editor Cole Carmody not only keeps you in the loop with all things recruiting but also pitches in with cerebral football coverage. Jon Grove and Grant Snowden, both current journalism students at K-State, provide a fresh perspective on the Wildcats. Ethan Fitzgerald is the true jack of all trades, covering everything from women's basketball to soccer. Former offensive lineman Brien Hanley and former defensive back Monte Spiller also proudly contribute to GoPowercat with unmatched football knowledge. On the basketball side, GoPowercat is also blessed to have Clent Stewart on board, as the former K-State guard from 2004-08 is a literal hoops expert. So, what are you waiting for? Sign up to GoPowercat now! CLICK HERE AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR CURRENT OFFER To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's a party in Pewaukee! Super Greats Stud and Sonya are back with a school days story so good, it's nun approved! There's also meaty croissants (quaso!), lotsa lost pasta, a fresh batch of Bugs or Not Bothered and Hot Girl Trends. And don't miss our new POPs.Find us on Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/notsupergreatpodcastEat the delicious Bad Johnny's Pizza at The Longroom:https://www.badjohnnys.com/Go to the places we record at:The Wolfhoundhttps://wolfhoundchicago.com/Web Pubhttps://www.webpubbucktown.com/The Longroomhttps://www.longroomchicago.com/Wrigleyville Northhttps://www.WrigleyvilleNorthChicago.com/

   Ok, I know.... we didn't get a podcast up this morning, but hey, it's President's Day.    We were traveling all day right after doing the radio show in the lobby of a hotel.  You may hear some kids in the background and you will definitely hear Cabo woofing at another pup that walked by.  It's near the very end.    Anyway, we need to move President's Day up and the Jerome Tang situation in Manhattan is one of the all time most embarrassing debacles in the 41 years I've covered sports in KC.  Here ya go...

   If we start to put the pieces of a puzzle together the picture became very clear the past few days... the elderly leaders of the democrat party are being fazed out and don't actually believe the things they've been saying publicly.  President Obama says he's being "aged out" by the younger part of his party and he's right.  But he's not alone.  We take a deep dive.    Meanwhile, Marco Rubio gives one of the greatest speeches in US history by a Secretary of State on foreign soil at the security conference in Germany.  And yes, it was better than AOC's appearance. Wow, what a difference.    An Australian influencer that wanted to live on singer Billie Eilish's "stolen land, borderless property" is turned away after being detained at LAX.   KCUR, the liberal public radio station in KC, infuriates it's listeners by giving airtime to Trump supporters.    In sports, Royals owner John Sherman says they are close to announcing a location and deal for a new stadium.  Gene Taylor has done the impossible at K-State..... he's turned Jerome Tang from the least popular coach in America that nobody supported to a sympathatic figure with an incredible new attorney fighting his cause.    And Pro Football Focus ranks NFL quarterbacks, we'll tell you where Mahomes is listed.   Our Final Final is the go-to BBQ experience in KC that convinced Argentina's officials that our cowtown is the perfect place for them to stay during the World Cup.

When it comes to FIFA World Cup base camps, Kansas City can flex. Three of the world's top-seven teams — Argentina, England and Netherlands — have made it official: They're summer camping in KC.On SportsBeat KC, the sports podcast of The Star and KCUR, columnist Sam McDowell explains how Kansas City created the conditions to land those teams — and what it means to have them and their fans coming to the Heartland.Also, Kansas State reporter Kellis Robinett goes inside the coaching change at K-State. Jerome Tang is out, and the Wildcats are in the market for a new men's basketball coach. Complicating matters: Tang was fired with cause for postgame press conference comments, and he plans to fight the school for his $18.67 million buy out.0:02 — Intro1:07 — What teams will basecamp conversation with Sam 9:37 —  How Jackstack might've helped England chose KC 16:58 — What led up to K-state hiring their head basketball coach with Kellis29:36 - What's on Blair's Radar this week

Connor and Mike aren't big fans on how Kansas State handled the Jerome Tang situation.

Kansas State is entering a difficult new chapter after moving on from head basketball coach Jerome Tang, and Wyatt Thompson, Voice of the Kansas State Wildcats and Kansas Sports Hall of Famer, joins 365 Sports to break it all down. Thompson shares insight into what led to the decision, the impact of injuries and roster turnover, and what interim head coach Matthew Driscoll brings to the program moving forward. He also discusses the strong Baylor connections within the K State staff, the challenge of building continuity in the NIL and transfer portal era, and how today's rapidly changing college athletics landscape is affecting programs across the Big 12. #collegebasketball #cbb #mbb #kstate #emaw #big12 #big12mbb Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Big 12 title race continues to heat up following Iowa State's comeback win over Houston, and Kevin Flaherty, College Sports Writer for Kansas City Sports Network, joins 365 Sports to break down the latest from around the conference. Flaherty discusses how the Cyclones were able to rally in one of the toughest road environments in college basketball, why the top tier of the Big 12 may all be legitimate national title contenders, and what makes this conference race one of the most competitive in the country. He also shares insight on the growing national fallout from Kansas State's decision to fire Jerome Tang and what the next steps could look like as the situation potentially heads toward arbitration. #collegebasketball #cbb #mbb #big12 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The fallout from Kansas State's decision to move on from Jerome Tang continues to ripple across the Big 12, and Ari Temkin, Big 12 Radio Host on SiriusXM, joins 365 Sports to break down the financial reality behind Tang's historic buyout and what it means for the future of the Wildcats program. Temkin discusses how NIL resources and booster support factor into major coaching decisions, why K State remains an attractive destination in college basketball, and how the evolving landscape is impacting programs across the conference. He also shares thoughts on Baylor's defensive struggles last season, what DJ Lagway could bring to Dave Aranda's offense, and why fixing the defense may ultimately determine the Bears' ceiling this year. #collegebasketball #collegefootball #big12 #jerometang Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Connor and Ace talk about the massive news of Jerome Tang's firing and how they reconcile it with the current landscape.Twitter: https://x.com/AggievilleACatsMerch: https://aggievillealleycats.myspreadshop.com/

Kansas State has fired head coach Jerome Tang, bringing a sudden end to one of the most dramatic tenures in recent Big 12 basketball history.Pete Mundo breaks down how Tang's run at Kansas State started with massive momentum, why things unraveled, and what the Wildcats will be looking for next. Plus, what this move means for Kansas State's place in the Big 12 and the coaching carousel ahead.Privacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Chris Williams & Brent Blum with a packed show for Sunday, Feb. 15. Moments before recording, Jerome Tang was fired at Kansas State. We've got reaction from a chaotic weekend in the Big 12, which included Iowa State's rout of Kansas in Hilton Coliseum. Monday's showdown with top-5 Houston looms. All of that and more, courtesy of Mechdyne in the Northwest Bank Studio. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Keith Murphy and Andy Fales discuss Iowa State's win over Kansas and what it means for the Big 12 race, along with Iowa's loss to Purdue in Big Ten play. The conversation also includes mounting pressure around Kansas State's Jerome Tang, NCAA Tournament implications, and more from around college basketball. Michael Jordan wins on the pavement. AJ Green gets his jersey retired at UNI. Another packed episode of Murph & Andy on Iowa Everywhere! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Schaefer and Show has thoughts on how the Kansas State Wildcats handle the Jerome Tang situation.

Kansas State basketball coach Jerome Tang was released from his duties on Sunday by Kansas State Director of Athletics Gene Taylor. On3 first reported the firing of K-State's fourth-year head coach, but as of 6:25 p.m., GoPowercat was informed that the process hit a temporary roadblock earlier this evening. The announcement was officially made at 7:36 p.m. Sunday night. Tang and Taylor met earlier Sunday to work through the firing or resignation of Tang. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The GoPowercat staff gathers to discuss Kansas State's firing of basketball coach Jerome Tang and the future of K-State hoops. The boys discuss that and much more on the K-State Insiders. This week's show features GoPowercat publisher Tim Fitzgerald, managing editor Ryan Gilbert, GPC senior recruiting analyst Cole Carmody, and Big 12 Insiders host Brien Hanley. Are you enjoying our free video coverage of the Wildcats? Lock in at GoPowercat with a VIP subscription and unlock everything we have to offer. Our premium message board — Wabash Station — is a fan-favorite, as K-State nation joins together with non-stop discussion, debates and banter. Whether you want to join in on the action and post your thoughts on a daily basis or just sit back and see what people are saying, everyone has a place on Wabash Station. With premium scoop from our staff members, along with constant recruiting updates, Wabash Station is the place to be. But gaining access to Wabash Station only scratches the surface. While some articles are free, a good chunk of our written content is available exclusively for VIPs at GoPowercat. Whether it's top-notch breakdowns or unfiltered analysis, our VIP articles offer insight found nowhere else. Longtime publisher Tim Fitzgerald has assembled a one-of-a-kind crew. His right-hand man, Ryan Gilbert, serves as managing editor, overseeing the day-to-day operations on the site. Recruiting editor Cole Carmody not only keeps you in the loop with all things recruiting but also pitches in with cerebral football coverage. Jon Grove and Grant Snowden, both current journalism students at K-State, provide a fresh perspective on the Wildcats. Ethan Fitzgerald is the true jack of all trades, covering everything from women's basketball to soccer. Former offensive lineman Brien Hanley and former defensive back Monte Spiller also proudly contribute to GoPowercat with unmatched football knowledge. On the basketball side, GoPowercat is also blessed to have Clent Stewart on board, as the former K-State guard from 2004-08 is a literal hoops expert. So, what are you waiting for? Sign up to GoPowercat now! CLICK HERE AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR CURRENT OFFER To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly | 2-16-26See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

-Tang is being fired for cause to try to avoid his 18 million dollar buyoutOur Sponsors:* Check out BetterHelp: https://www.betterhelp.comAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

   What has happened that we seem to have two sets of laws in America today.  From Tucson to Minneapolis and now, to KC... enforcement of the law comes down to one thing for those that commit crimes.  Do you love Trump or hate him?   A woman in KC sets fire to the building ICE wants to use and apparently authorities do not care at all.    Karoline Leavitt has fun trolling President Obama over voter ID saying Dems are panicked while posting a cool video.  Switzerland has had enough of illegal aliens pouring in and will hold a vote to limit the population of their country.    In sports, Jerome Tang blasting his players has made the K-State coach famous national as ESPN has a field day with his pathetic words.  The Daytona 500 is set for Sunday... we love the Great American Race.    Danny Clinkscale has a total meltdown on our Patron's Podcast Thursday about Golf Channel's lead announcer Steve Sands... this is hilarious and you will love it.    And our Final Final is a USA skier that says too much.

Keith Murphy and Andy Fales dive into Olympic controversies, college basketball pressure, and more on this episode of Murph & Andy. The guys discuss Iowa State's upcoming matchup with Kansas, Iowa looking to bounce back in Big Ten play, and recent coaching reactions around the Big 12. Plus, Drake's rebuilding struggles, Valentine's Day memories gone wrong, and the usual mix of sports and MORE! Another wide-ranging episode of Murph & Andy on Iowa Everywhere. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

   At his State of the City address, Mayor Q pledges he will reach an agreement with the Royals this year to build a downtown stadium.  If he pulls it off, this will be great for KC.    Mizzou wins in a wild one at A&M and suddenly anything feels possible.  Meanwhile, Jerome Tang melts down after losing by 29 at a game the students wore paper bags over their heads.    The Olathe School district, already mired in a cesspool of negative stories, is asking for $389 million in a sham mail in vote.  Don't tell them no.  Tell them hell no!    KCMO radio's Pete Mundo has received a tremendous national honor as having one of the top shows in America.  Bobby Witt Jr has brought his puppy to training camp and you can follow on the dog's Instagram page.  The Big 12 makes its "major announcement" about a change in KC for the tourney.  The Chiefs make a nice hire for running backs coach.    ESPN's Seth Greenberg unloads on Darryn Peterson of KU.  We'll play the audio for you.    And say goodbye to the Obama Button in our Final Final.

If you've ever wondered what peak American efficiency looks like, allow us to introduce Officer John ‘Merica — who literally hopped into the back of a Ford pickup truck to help catch a bike thief while Fortunate Son played like it was scripted by the universe. That alone earns this episode a permanent place in daily comedy show history.But that's just the opening act.The real chaos begins when the Rizz Show crew unveils Around the Horn: Mind Meld Edition, a seemingly innocent word game that immediately exposes competitive instincts, questionable handwriting, defensive strategies, and one of the most intense debates over whether “Tequila” and “Tequila Sunrise” are legally the same thing. (They are not. According to Riz. Final ruling.)From winter activities that absolutely shouldn't count, to body parts no one planned on saying out loud, to sudden death purse contents deciding the final winners — this episode spirals exactly the way you want a daily comedy show to spiral: loudly, unnecessarily, and with just enough confusion to keep it interesting.Accusations of conspiracies fly. Southern Illinois logic makes an appearance. Tang is deployed as a strategic answer. And somehow, through all of this, two winners emerge while everyone else questions their life choices.This is the Rizz Show at its finest — weird news, competitive nonsense, and real-time arguments that only make sense if you were there… which is why you should be here. If you like your daily comedy show messy, loud, and unapologetically stupid in the best way, welcome home.Follow The Rizzuto Show → https://linktr.ee/rizzshow Connect with The Rizzuto Show Comedy Podcast → https://1057thepoint.com/RizzShow Hear The Rizz Show daily on the radio at 105.7 The Point | Hubbard Radio in St. Louis, MO.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Nutritional rickets is caused by a vitamin D deficiency, and people figured out two ways to treat it before we even knew what vitamin D was. Research: “Oldest UK case of rickets in Neolithic Tiree skeleton.” 9/10/2015. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34208976 Carpenter, Kenneth J. “Harriette Chick and the Problem of Rickets.” The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 138, Issue 5, 827 – 832 Chesney, Russell W. “New thoughts concerning the epidemic of rickets: was the role of alum overlooked?.” Pediatric Nephrology. (2012) 27:3–6. DOI 10.1007/s00467-011-2004-9. Craig, Wallace and Morris Belkin. “The Prevention and Cure of Rickets.” The Scientific Monthly , May, 1925, Vol. 20, No. 5 (May, 1925). Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/7260 Davidson, Tish. "Rickets." The Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, edited by Jacqueline L. Longe, 6th ed., vol. 7, Gale, 2020, pp. 4485-4487. Gale OneFile: Health and Medicine, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX7986601644/GPS?u=mlin_n_melpub&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=811f7e02. Accessed 7 Jan. 2026. Friedman, Aaron. “A brief history of rickets.” Pediatric Nephrology (2020) 35:1835–1841. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00467-019-04366-9 Hawkes, Colin P, and Michael A Levine. “A painting of the Christ Child with bowed legs: Rickets in the Renaissance.” American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics vol. 187,2 (2021): 216-218. doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.31894 Ihde, Aaron J. “Studies on the History of Rickets. I: Recognition of Rickets as a Deficiency Disease.” Pharmacy in History, 1974, Vol. 16, No. 3 (1974). https://www.jstor.org/stable/41108858 Ihde, Aaron J. “Studies on the History of Rickets. II : The Roles of Cod Liver Oil and Light.” Pharmacy in History, 1975, Vol. 17, No. 1 (1975). https://www.jstor.org/stable/41108885 Newton, Gil. “Diagnosing Rickets in Early Modern England: Statistical Evidence and Social Response.” Social History of Medicine Vol. 35, No. 2 pp. 566–588. https://academic.oup.com/shm/article/35/2/566/6381535 O'Riordan, Jeffrey L H, and Olav L M Bijvoet. “Rickets before the discovery of vitamin D.” BoneKEy reports vol. 3 478. 8 Jan. 2014, doi:10.1038/bonekey.2013.212. Palm, T. “Etiology of Rickets.” Br Med J 1888; 2 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.1457.1247 (Published 01 December 1888) Rajakumar, Kumaravel and Stephen B. Thomas. “Reemerging Nutritional Rickets: A Historical Perspective.” Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. Published Online: April 2005 2005;159;(4):335-341. doi:10.1001/archpedi.159.4.335 Swinburne, Layinka M. “Rickets and the Fairfax family receipt books.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Vol. 99. August 2006. Tait, H. P.. “Daniel Whistler and His Contribution to Pædiatrics.” Edinburgh Medical Journal vol. 53,6 (1946): 325–330. Warren, Christian. “No Magic Bolus: What the History of Rickets and Vitamin D Can Teach Us About Setting Standards.” Journal of Adolescent Health. 66 (2020) 379e380. https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30038-0/pdf Wheeler, Benjamin J et al. “A Brief History of Nutritional Rickets.” Frontiers in endocrinology vol. 10 795. 14 Nov. 2019, doi:10.3389/fendo.2019.00795 World Health Organization. “The Magnitude and Distribution of Nutritoinal Rickets: Disease Burden in Infants, Children, and Adolescents.” 2019. Via JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep27899.7 Zhang, M., Shen, F., Petryk, A., Tang, J., Chen, X., & Sergi, C. (2016). “English Disease”: Historical Notes on Rickets, the Bone–Lung Link and Child Neglect Issues. Nutrients, 8(11), 722. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu8110722 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.