POPULARITY
Categories
157 episodes with attitudes
102 episodes with attitudes
132 episodes with attitudes
52 episodes with attitudes
48 episodes with attitudes
25 episodes with attitudes
24 episodes with attitudes
11 episodes with attitudes
32 episodes with attitudes
17 episodes with attitudes
13 episodes with attitudes
27 episodes with attitudes
8 episodes with attitudes
13 episodes with attitudes
14 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
12 episodes with attitudes
16 episodes with attitudes
14 episodes with attitudes
9 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
10 episodes with attitudes
9 episodes with attitudes
10 episodes with attitudes
10 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
9 episodes with attitudes
10 episodes with attitudes
13 episodes with attitudes
9 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
11 episodes with attitudes
8 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
8 episodes with attitudes
7 episodes with attitudes
7 episodes with attitudes
8 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
8 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
7 episodes with attitudes
8 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
7 episodes with attitudes
11 episodes with attitudes
8 episodes with attitudes
8 episodes with attitudes
7 episodes with attitudes
7 episodes with attitudes
7 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
8 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
12 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
17 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
7 episodes with attitudes
13 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
10 episodes with attitudes
12 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
9 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
8 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
8 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
![Attitudes of sexual integrity! The Journey from sexual compulsion to Sexual Integrity. Addiction Recovery [Sex] Mode!](https://ivyfm.s3.amazonaws.com/i320/235193.jpg)
6 episodes with attitudes
8 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
2 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
2 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
9 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
2 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
2 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
5 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
2 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
12 episodes with attitudes
2 episodes with attitudes
2 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
4 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
6 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
2 episodes with attitudes
2 episodes with attitudes
2 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
3 episodes with attitudes
The notion of free will is as old as time, and it is the first deception ever given to mankind. Today most Christians believe in free will theology, but the bible does not share these views. Today we will see just what it says on this hotly contested topic. * 00:00 - Introduction * 04:28 - The Sovereignty of God* 24:56 - Does God Respect Free Will? * 46:23 - Taking Credit for the Outcome* 1:09:39 - Attitudes in the New Testament * 1:14:14 - Praying that God Takes Over * 1:21:00 - Verses Against Boasting* 1:24:22 - CHALLENGE: Free Will Verses This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.danceoflife.com/subscribe
Kurt Schlichter, retired Army Colonel, trial attorney, senior columnist at Townhall.com, joins the show by phone to talk about his upcoming book Panama Red, which releases on December 9th and is available for pre-order now, and discussion on the media controversy surrounding Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s decision to strike a drug-smuggling boat new Venezuela in September, the attitudes of Somalian immigrants in Minnesota, and his recent piece at Townhall, “Mating in 2025 Is Totally Incomprehensible.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
J.J. and Dr. Alon Goshen-Gottstein stay current. They discuss 21st century Jewish thinkers like Jonathan Sacks, Irving Greenberg, and Goshen-Gottstein himself. This is the fifth and final episode in our miniseries about universalism and particularism in Judaism. Over the course of the series we explored and complicated Jewish attitudes to these ideas across the centuries. Follow us on Bluesky @jewishideaspod.bsky.social for updates and insights!Please rate and review the the show in the podcast app of your choice.We welcome all complaints and compliments at podcasts@torahinmotion.org For more information visit torahinmotion.org/podcastsRabbi Dr. Alon Goshen-Gottstein is acknowledged as one of the world's leading figures in interreligious dialogue. He is the founder and director of the Elijah Interfaith Institute since 1997. His work bridges the theological and academic dimensions with a variety of practical initiatives, especially involving world religious leadership. A noted scholar of Jewish studies, he has held academic posts at Tel Aviv University and has served as director of the Center for the Study of Rabbinic Thought, Beit Morasha College, Jerusalem. His most recent publications are Idolatry - A Contemporary Jewish Conversation (Academic Studies Press, 2023) and Covenant and World Religions - Irving Greenberg, Jonathan Sacks and the Quest for Orthodox Pluralism (Littman Library, 2023), finalist of the Rabbi Sacks Book Prize for 2023.
In this candid podcast, Bureau Veritas Marine and Offshore's cyber security technical leader Panagiotis Anastasiou outlines his concerns about what he views as shipping's limited approach to cyber security and a need for increased awareness of its importance. His career-long knowledge and experience of cyber security arrangements in the aerospace sector — particularly with satellite technology — gives him an authoritative overview of cyber security and, for an industry that has autonomous vessels in development, he had expected to find shipping to be very advanced in its cyber security implementation and attitudes. Instead, he found that was not the case. His remarks include an example of a recent incident in which a service provider's systems were compromised, affecting at least 120 ships. The breach was subsequently repaired but the full story prompts Anastasiou to observe that “we fall in the same hole again and again”. He says this is because of limited efforts to prepare for cyber security difficulties. In contrast to shipping's approach, cyber security is the starting point when satellite systems are designed, he says. Controls, procedures and governance are built on that foundation, with ground infrastructure and component design following on. This approach should be common to all industries, including marine, he says. He acknowledges that maritime regulations now apply to cyber security which make it mandatory to take precautions, but he believes that shipowners and their system suppliers should go further. Attitudes must change So, he explains in the podcast that attitudes must change and he outlines some ideas about how cyber security awareness could be strengthened by better – and repeated – education and cyber drills that are backed up by companies' tested policies on how to respond to cyber security incidents. He goes on to describe how a cyber attack on a vessel might be triggered by an attack on shoreside systems, given the growing connectivity between ship and shore and vice versa. Not only that, but the implications of a maritime cyber attack can extend far beyond the company itself, since any resulting operational delay could have an impact on an entire supply chain. Class societies have addressed cyber security concerns by developing two Unified Requirements — UR 26 and UR 27 — and Anastasiou was a member of the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) Cyber Systems Panel that developed them. But he suggests in the podcast that these should be viewed as starting points for class societies to evolve requirements to match the pace of change in technology. As a response to his remarks, he encourages listeners to conduct internal assessments of their own cyber security and to reach out to their class societies for guidance to improve their resilience.
The Rod and Greg Show Rundown – Tuesday, December 2, 20254:20 pm: Sean Stevens, Chief Research Advisor for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), joins the program to discuss the results of a new survey of college students, including students at Utah Valley University, about how the assassination of Charlie Kirk is shaping student attitudes and behavior.4:38 pm: Jarrett Stepman, Columnist for the Daily Signal, joins the show for a conversation about his piece about the massive gap between red states and blue states when it comes to affordability.6:05 pm: Utah Senate President Stuart Adams joins Rod and Greg to discuss the latest on the Utah Legislature's efforts to overturn the congressional map put into place by Judge Dianna Gibson.6:38 pm: Jeff Charles, News Editor for Townhall, joins the show for a conversation about his piece on the 5,000 Afghan nationals flagged as national security risks allowed into the U.S. by the Biden administration.
Are our attitudes to drinking changing faster than we think? A new milestone for Kiwi brand AF drinks suggests they are. Its founder, Lisa King spoke to Ingrid Hipkiss.
Studying the scriptures daily, listening to the words of Christ, and driving darkness from our lives are ways to understand true doctrine. Click here to see the speech page.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The December 2025 recall features four previously released episodes focused on neuropalliative care. The episode begins with Dr. Stacey Clardy speaking with Dr. Janis Miyasaki about her path into neurology, the integration of palliative care into neurologic practice, and the essential role of patient-centered care. The conversation continues with Dr. Miranda Wan addressing strategies to enhance training and public awareness to optimize palliative care for patients with neurologic conditions. The recall concludes with Dr. Carolyn Rennels discussing the characteristics and motivations of patients with ALS who sought medical aid in dying in a two-part series. Podcast links: 2025 AAN President's Award Recipient - Dr. Janis Miyasaki Attitudes and Perceptions on Palliative Care Characteristics and Motivations of People With ALS Who Pursue Medical Aid in Dying - Part 1 Characteristics and Motivations of People With ALS Who Pursue Medical Aid in Dying - Part 2 Article links: 2025 AAN President's Award Neurologists' Attitudes and Perceptions on Palliative Care: A Qualitative Study Characteristics and Motivations of People With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Who Pursue Medical Aid in Dying in California Disclosures can be found at Neurology.org.
A pedofilia tem sido considerada, pelos discursos sociais, como a ‘mais abjeta' entre as perversões. No discurso médico, é uma patologia e refere-se ao fato de um adulto tomar crianças como objeto sexual. Será a pedofilia um pecado, um crime, uma doença? E como lidar com ela? Esta é a segunda de duas partes.Confira o papo entre o leigo curioso, Ken Fujioka, e o cientista PhD, Altay de Souza.>> OUÇA (44min 42s)*PARTICIPAÇÕES ESPECIAISSvetlanna, ou Lanna, é trabalhadora sexual há 8 anos, voluntária no NEP (Núcleo de Estudos da Рrostituição em Porto Alegre), "putativista". No Twitter: @sv3tlannaJuliana Molina Constantino, psicóloga clínica, forense, escritora e educadora. Na clínica trabalha com adultos vítimas de abuso sexual infantil; na justiça atua conduzindo Depoimentos Especiais e realizando Perícias Psicológicas de crianças e adolescentes em processos de apuração de violência de todos os tipos, mas, principalmente a sexual. No Instagram: @psijuconstantino* Naruhodo! é o podcast pra quem tem fome de aprender. Ciência, senso comum, curiosidades, desafios e muito mais. Com o leigo curioso, Ken Fujioka, e o cientista PhD, Altay de Souza.Edição: Reginaldo Cursino.http://naruhodo.b9.com.br*REFERÊNCIASPedofilia: revisão médica e repercussões penais https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/2/2136/tde-10042024-121635/en.phpOs árbitros do desejo e os enteados da natureza: controvérsias e ontologias sobre a categoria pedofilia em torno do DSM - 5 https://www.bdtd.uerj.br:8443/handle/1/19240Aspectos Psicológicos dos Protagonistas de Incestohttps://bdtd.ucb.br:8443/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1884/1/Texto%20Completo.pdfParafilias: uma classificação fenomenológicahttps://actaspsiquiatria.es/index.php/actas/article/download/564/821A Review of Academic Use of the Term “Minor Attracted Persons”https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15248380241270028Sexual interest in children among an online sample of men and women: prevalence and correlateshttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24215791/Correlates and moderators of child pornography consumption in a community samplehttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24088812/PSIQUIATRIA E PEDOFILIA: A ORGANIZAÇÃO B4U-ACT E O DIREITO À SAÚDE MENTAL DAS PESSOAS ATRAÍDAS POR MENORES (MAPS)https://proceedings.science/abrascao-2022/trabalhos/psiquiatria-e-pedofilia-a-organizacao-b4u-act-e-o-direito-a-saude-mental-das-pesThe DSM and the Stigmatization of People who Are Attracted to Minorshttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-Kramer-10/publication/365993590_The_DSM_and_the_Stigmatization_of_People_who_Are_Attracted_to_Minors/links/638bd5d7ca2e4b239c8896e1/The-DSM-and-the-Stigmatization-of-People-who-Are-Attracted-to-Minors.pdfChanging public attitudes toward minor attracted persons: an evaluation of an anti-stigma intervention https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13552600.2020.1863486?casa_token=iK-wFTzYUbYAAAAA:UmI5w_4dc4d4C9FU9Z1OCpTp5oVb1CkeC1ygV8rg94GSUCUVG886jSpFi6sD_c8uDJQm4gQudZBIQualitative Analysis of Minor Attracted Persons' Subjective Experience: Implications for Treatment https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2126808?casa_token=uNwM4nBfx9UAAAAA:Jo75nZFTKEtnYsLlbO2k0hBMaSc5iUC2a2hrGyWF_C5kRNI-ghibqhF01eZPhAv8ygWg-OHWAPyfBeing Sexually Attracted to Minors: Sexual Development, Coping With Forbidden Feelings, and Relieving Sexual Arousal in Self-Identified Pedophiles https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2015.1061077?src=recsysA Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignityhttps://books.google.com.br/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SksqEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=(MAPS)+attracted+by+minors&ots=h0RKV2g6vr&sig=39-uleVMpIgO4bkjPKShVScmfh0&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=(MAPS)%20attracted%20by%20minors&f=falseMisrepresenting the “MAP” Literature Does Little to Advance Child Abuse Prevention: A Critical Commentary and Response to Farmer, Salter, and Woodlockhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15248380251332197Outpatient Therapists' Perspectives on Working With Persons Who Are Sexually Interested in Minorshttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-022-02377-6The Terminology of “Minor Attracted People” and the Campaign to De-stigmatize Paedophilia Originated in Pro-pedophile Advocacyhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15248380251332198A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issueshttps://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)61074-4/abstracthttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025619611610744Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Childrenhttps://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4317491Intervention Needs in Prison With Pedophile Inmateshttps://www.papelesdelpsicologo.es/pii?pii=3027Child molester or paedophile? Sociolegal versus psychopathological classification of sexual offenders against children https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13552600802133860School sex education, a process for evaluation: methodology and results https://academic.oup.com/her/article-abstract/11/2/205/628476Teachers' Attitudes and Opinions Toward Sexuality Education in School: A Systematic Review of Secondary and High School Teachers https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15546128.2024.2353708‘Chronophilia': Entries of Erotic Age Preference into Descriptive Psychopathologyhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/medical-history/article/chronophilia-entries-of-erotic-age-preference-into-descriptive-psychopathology/1896C08F07CB5F1A428CEEF3E1104586Biological Factors in the Development of Sexual Deviance and Aggression in Males.https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-12464-004Mamilos 123 - Pedofilia (2017)https://open.spotify.com/episode/3RxgeS0ZovQue7lK61TLkiNaruhodo #403 - Por que temos fetiches sexuais?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ET1nIP6WMNaruhodo #433 - Existe amizade entre homens e mulheres? - Parte 1 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFVaBfGaowgNaruhodo #434 - Existe amizade entre homens e mulheres? - Parte 2 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6D1yCni0rcNaruhodo #437 - O termo "macho alfa" faz sentido? - Parte 1 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx1z1R_He_cNaruhodo #438 - O termo "macho alfa" faz sentido? - Parte 2 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNKh0Zd3h_kNaruhodo #399 - Assistir à pornografia vicia?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vByA0QVSOb8Naruhodo #150 - O que é o "No Fap September"?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yWTngyTq1gNaruhodo #325 - Por que nos apaixonamos por vilões? - Parte 1 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9F4Q_jjF88Naruhodo #326 - Por que nos apaixonamos por vilões? - Parte 2 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gtkstkqpUwNaruhodo #320 - Por que nos identificamos com vilões?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH5aTG0xeLwNaruhodo #419 - Maconha faz mal? - Parte 1 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvLTh2bKPiQNaruhodo #420 - Maconha faz mal? - Parte 2 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7wVcGvpoGA*APOIE O NARUHODO!O Altay e eu temos duas mensagens pra você.A primeira é: muito, muito obrigado pela sua audiência. Sem ela, o Naruhodo sequer teria sentido de existir. Você nos ajuda demais não só quando ouve, mas também quando espalha episódios para familiares, amigos - e, por que não?, inimigos.A segunda mensagem é: existe uma outra forma de apoiar o Naruhodo, a ciência e o pensamento científico - apoiando financeiramente o nosso projeto de podcast semanal independente, que só descansa no recesso do fim de ano.Manter o Naruhodo tem custos e despesas: servidores, domínio, pesquisa, produção, edição, atendimento, tempo... Enfim, muitas coisas para cobrir - e, algumas delas, em dólar.A gente sabe que nem todo mundo pode apoiar financeiramente. E tá tudo bem. Tente mandar um episódio para alguém que você conhece e acha que vai gostar.A gente sabe que alguns podem, mas não mensalmente. E tá tudo bem também. Você pode apoiar quando puder e cancelar quando quiser. O apoio mínimo é de 15 reais e pode ser feito pela plataforma ORELO ou pela plataforma APOIA-SE. Para quem está fora do Brasil, temos até a plataforma PATREON.É isso, gente. Estamos enfrentando um momento importante e você pode ajudar a combater o negacionismo e manter a chama da ciência acesa. Então, fica aqui o nosso convite: apóie o Naruhodo como puder.bit.ly/naruhodo-no-orelo
Everyone has troubles in life, but our outlook and attitude has so much to do with whether we learn from them.
CONQUER SHYNESS
Episode 232 — "Intentions and Attitudes." In this episode, I dig into why an attitude of gratitude actually works on your brain and your day-to-day experience. We talk about the lower "caveman brain" (seek pleasure, avoid pain, conserve energy), confirmation bias (what you focus on grows), and how setting intentions ahead of time can shape the attitudes you'll have later—in district meetings, at family gatherings, on the mission, and post-mission. I share simple ways to direct your higher brain to look for connection, faith, abundance, calm, and purpose—especially during Thanksgiving week when emotions and expectations can run high. I also explore how prayer functions as powerful intention setting—expressing gratitude and asking for blessings tells your brain what to pay attention to while inviting divine help. We connect this with Doctrine & Covenants 29: creating things spiritually first (in thought and feeling) so they're more likely to appear physically in your life. Whether you're a preparing missionary, currently serving, a returned missionary, or a missionary mama, you'll get practical tools to train your focus, regulate emotions, and choose thoughts that fuel connection over comparison. You'll leave with doable practices: pre-deciding what you want to notice, choosing language your brain understands ("I want more peace" vs. "I don't want stress"), and building a simple gratitude rhythm that resets perspective fast. If you're ready to experience more calm, clarity, and Christ-centered confidence this season, this conversation on intentions and attitudes will help you create it. As always, if you found this episode helpful, I want to invite you to subscribe if you aren't already, share this episode with your friends and missionaries you know, and write a review. I know this work will help LDS missionaries around the world and it would mean so much to me if you did. Until next week my friends. Website | Instagram | Facebook Get the Full Show Notes and Text/PDF Transcripts: HERE Free PDF Download: Podcast Roadmap Free PDF Download: Preparing Missionary Cheat Sheet Free Training for Preparing Missionaries: Change Your Mission with this One Tool RM Transition Free Video Series: 3 Tools to Help RMs in Their Transition Home Free Guide: 5 Tips to Help Any Returning Missionary Schedule a Free Strategy Call: Click Here
Click the icon below to listen.
What are you thankful for this year? Maybe that's a hard question for you. In fact, these may be very difficult days for you. But if you're in Christ, you have cause to give thanks even today—and every day. To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/85/29?v=20251111
Click the icon below to listen.
In this episode we look at if we can learn about simple living from these two groups. Turns out, a lot!
As you look at the world around you—with your head spinning at all the chaos . . . all the problems . . . all the wrong thinking . . . in a world that seems upside-down—what can you be thankful for? To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/85/29?v=20251111
Kirk & Lacy on shifting research funding away from federal grants: what happens to community partnerships when the money—and the rules—change? Summary Three Audiences, One Report Lacy Fabian and Kirk Knestis untangle a fundamental confusion in community health research: there are three distinct audiences with competing needs—funders want accountability, researchers want generalizable knowledge, and communities want immediate benefit. Current practice optimizes for the funder, producing deliverables that don’t help the people being served. The alternative isn’t “no strings attached” anarchy but rather honest negotiation about who benefits and who bears the burden of proof. Kirk’s revelation about resource allocation is stark: if one-third of evaluation budgets goes to Click here to view the printable newsletter with images. More readable than a transcript. Contents Table of Contents Toggle EpisodeProem1. Introductions & Career Transitions2. The Catalyst: Why This Conversation Matters3. The Ideal State: Restoring Human Connection4. The Localization Opportunity5. Evidence + Story = Impact6. The Funder Issue: Who Is This Truly Benefiting?7. Dissemination, Implementation & Vested Interest8. Data Parties – The Concrete Solution9. No Strings Attached: Reimagining Funder Relationships10. Balancing Accountability and Flexibility11. Where the Money Actually Goes12. The Pendulum Swings13. The Three Relationships: Funder, Researcher, Community14. Maintaining Agency15. Listen and LearnReflectionRelated episodes from Health Hats Please comment and ask questions: at the comment section at the bottom of the show notes on LinkedIn via email YouTube channel DM on Instagram, TikTok to @healthhats Substack Patreon Production Team Kayla Nelson: Web and Social Media Coach, Dissemination, Help Desk Leon van Leeuwen: editing and site management Oscar van Leeuwen: video editing Julia Higgins: Digit marketing therapy Steve Heatherington: Help Desk and podcast production counseling Joey van Leeuwen, Drummer, Composer, and Arranger, provided the music for the intro, outro, proem, and reflection Claude, Perplexity, Auphonic, Descript, Grammarly, DaVinci Podcast episode on YouTube Inspired by and Grateful to: Ronda Alexander, Eric Kettering, Robert Motley, Liz Salmi, Russell Bennett Photo Credits for Videos Data Party image by Erik Mclean on Unsplash Pendulum image by Frames For Your Heart on Unsplash Links and references Lacy Fabian, PhD, is the founder of Make It Matter Program Consulting and Resources (makeitmatterprograms.com). She is a research psychologist with 20+ years of experience in the non-profit and local, state, and federal sectors who uses evidence and story to demonstrate impact that matters. She focuses on helping non-profits thrive by supporting them when they need it—whether through a strategy or funding pivot, streamlining processes, etc. She also works with foundations and donors to ensure their giving matters, while still allowing the recipient non-profits to maintain focus on their mission. When she isn't making programs matter, she enjoys all things nature —from birdwatching to running —and is an avid reader. Lacy Fabian’s Newsletter: Musings That Matter: Expansive Thinking About Humanity’s Problems Kirk Knestis is an expert in data use planning, design, and capacity building, with experience helping industry, government, and education partners leverage data to solve difficult questions. Kirk is the Executive Director of a startup community nonprofit that offers affordable, responsive maintenance and repairs for wheelchairs and other personal mobility devices to northern Virginia residents. He was the founding principal of Evaluand LLC, a research and evaluation consulting firm providing customized data collection, analysis, and reporting solutions, primarily serving clients in industry, government, and education. The company specializes in external evaluation of grant-funded projects, study design reviews, advisory services, and capacity-building support to assist organizations in using data to answer complex questions. Referenced in episode Zanakis, S.H., Mandakovic, T., Gupta, S.K., Sahay, S., & Hong, S. (1995). “A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors.” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 29, No. 1, March 1995, pp. 59-79. This paywalled article presents a detailed analysis of 306 articles from 93 journals that review project/program evaluation, selection, and funding allocation methods in the service and government sectors. Episode Proem When I examine the relationships between health communities and researchers, I become curious about the power dynamics involved. Strong, equitable relationships depend on a balance of power. But what exactly are communities, and what does a power balance look like? The communities I picture are intentional, voluntary groups of people working together to achieve common goals—such as seeking, fixing, networking, championing, lobbying, or communicating for best health for each other. These groups can meet in person or virtually, and can be local or dispersed. A healthy power balance involves mutual respect, participatory decision-making, active listening, and a willingness to adapt and grow. I always listen closely for connections between communities and health researchers. Connections that foster a learning culture, regardless of their perceived success. Please meet Lacy Fabian and Kirk Knestis, who have firsthand experience in building and maintaining equitable relationships, with whom I spoke in mid-September. This transcript has been edited for clarity with help from Grammarly. Lacy Fabian, PhD, is the founder of Make It Matter Program Consulting and Resources. She partners with non-profit, government, and federal organizations using evidence and storytelling to demonstrate impact and improve program results. Kirk Knestis is an expert in data use planning, design, and capacity building. As Executive Director of a startup community nonprofit and founding principal of Evaluand LLC. He specializes in research, evaluation, and organizational data analysis for complex questions. 1. Introductions & Career Transitions Kirk Knestis: My name’s Kirk Knestis. Until just a few weeks ago, I ran a research and evaluation consulting firm, Evaluand LLC, outside Washington, DC. I’m in the process of transitioning to a new gig. I’ve started a non-profit here in Northern Virginia to provide mobile wheelchair and scooter service. Probably my last project, I suspect. Health Hats: Your last thing, meaning you’re retiring. Kirk Knestis: Yeah, it’s most of my work in the consulting gig was funded by federal programs, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Ed, the National Institutes of Health, and funding for most of the programs that I was working on through grantees has been pretty substantially curtailed in the last few months. Rather than looking for a new research and evaluation gig, we’ve decided this is going to be something I can taper off and give back to the community a bit. Try something new and different, and keep me out of trouble. Health Hats: Yeah, good luck with the latter. Lacy, introduce yourself, please. Lacy Fabian: Hi, Lacy Fabian. Not very dissimilar from Kirk, I’ve made a change in the last few months. I worked at a large nonprofit for nearly 11 years, serving the Department of Health and Human Services. But now I am solo, working to consult with nonprofits and donors. The idea is that I would be their extra brain power when they need it. It’s hard to find funding, grow, and do all the things nonprofits do without a bit of help now and then. I’m looking to provide that in a new chapter, a new career focus. Health Hats: Why is this conversation happening now? Both Kirk and Lacy are going through significant changes as they move away from traditional grant-funded research and nonprofit hierarchies. They’re learning firsthand what doesn’t work and considering what might work instead—this isn't just theory—it’s lived experience. 2. The Catalyst: Why This Conversation Matters Health Hats: Lacy, we caught up after several years of working together on several projects. I’m really interested in community research partnerships. I’m interested in it because I think the research questions come from the communities rather than the researchers. It’s a fraught relationship between communities and researchers, often driven by power dynamics. I’m very interested in how to balance those dynamics. And I see some of this: a time of changing priorities and people looking at their gigs differently —what are the opportunities in this time of kind of chaos, and what are the significant social changes that often happen in times like this? 3. The Ideal State: Restoring Human Connection Health Hats: In your experience, especially given all the recent transitions, what do you see as the ideal relationship between communities and researchers? What would an ideal state look like? Lacy Fabian: One thing I was thinking about during my walk or run today, as I prepared for this conversation about equitable relationships and the power dynamics in this unique situation we’re in, is that I feel like we often romanticize the past instead of learning from it. I believe learning from the past is very important. When I think about an ideal scenario, I feel like we’re moving further away from human solidarity and genuine connection. So, when considering those equitable relationships, it seems to me that it’s become harder to build genuine connections and stay true to our humanness. From a learning perspective, without romanticizing the past, one example I thought of is that, at least in the last 50 years, we’ve seen exponential growth in the amount of information available. That's a concrete example we can point to. And I think that we, as a society, have many points where we could potentially connect. But recent research shows that’s not actually the case. Instead, we’re becoming more disconnected and finding it harder to connect. I believe that for our communities, even knowing how to engage with programs like what Kirk is working on is difficult. Or even in my position, trying to identify programs that truly want to do right, take that pause, and make sure they aim to be equitable—particularly on the funder side—and not just engage in transactions or give less generously than they intend if they’re supporting programs. But there are strings attached. I think all of this happens because we stop seeing each other as human beings; we lose those touchpoints. So, when I think about an ideal situation, I believe it involves restoring those connections, while more clearly and openly acknowledging the power dynamics we introduce and the different roles we assume in the ecosystem. We can’t expect those dynamics to be the same, or to neutralize their impact. However, we can discuss these issues more openly and consistently and acknowledge that they might influence outcomes. So, in an ideal scenario, these are the kinds of things we should be working toward. 4. The Localization Opportunity Health Hats: So Kirk, it strikes me listening to Lacy talk that there’s, in a way, the increased localization of this kind of work could lead to more relationships in the dynamic, whereas before, maybe it was. Things were too global. It was at an academic medical center and of national rather than local interest. What are your thoughts about any of that? Kirk Knestis: Yeah, that’s an excellent question. First, I want to make sure I acknowledge Lacy’s description philosophically, from a value standpoint. I couldn’t put it any better myself. Certainly, that’s got to be at the core of this. Lacy and I know each other because we both served on the board of the Professional Evaluation Society on the East Coast of the United States, and practice of evaluation, evaluating policies and programs, and use of resources, and all the other things that we can look at with evidence, the root of that word is value, right? And by making the values that drive whatever we’re doing explicit, we’re much more likely to connect. At levels in, way, in ways that are actually valuable, a human being level, not a technician level. But to your question, Danny, a couple of things immediately leap out at me. One is that there was always. I was primarily federally funded, indirectly; there’s always been a real drive for highly rigorous, high-quality evaluation. And what that oftentimes gets interpreted to mean is generalizable evaluation research. And so that tends to drive us toward quasi-experimental kinds of studies that require lots and lots of participants, validated instrumentation, and quantitative data. All of those things compromise our ability to really understand what’s going on for the people, right? For the real-life human stakeholders. One thing that strikes me is that we could be as funding gets picked up. I’m being optimistic here that funding will be picked up by other sources, but let’s say the nonprofits get more involved programs that in the past and in the purview of the feds, we’re going to be freed of some of that, I hope, and be able to be more subjective, more mixed methods, more on the ground and kind of maturein the, dirt down and dirty out on the streets, learning what’s going on for real humans. As opposed to saying, “Nope, sorry, we can’t even ask whether this program works or how it works until we’ve got thousands and thousands of participants and we can do math about the outcomes.” So that’s one way I think that things might be changing. 5. Evidence + Story = Impact One of the big elements I like to focus on is the evidence—the kind of, so what the program is doing—but also the story. Making sure both of those things are combined to share the impact. And one of the things that I think we aren’t great about, which kind of circles back to the whole topic about equitable relationships. I don’t often think we’re really great at acknowledging. Who our report outs are for 6. The Funder Issue: Who Is This Truly Benefiting? Health Hats: Yes, who’s the audience? Lacy Fabian: Describing the kind of traditional format, I’m going to have thousands of participants, and then I’m going to be able to start to do really fancy math. That audience is a particular player who’s our funder. And they have different needs and different goals. So so many times, but that’s not the same as the people we’re actually trying to help. I think part of actually having equity in practice is pushing our funders to acknowledge that those reports are really just for them. And what else are we doing for our other audiences, and how can we better uphold that with our limited resources? Do we really need that super fancy report that’s going to go on a shelf? And we talk about it a lot, but I think that’s the point. We’re still talking about it. And maybe now that our funding is shifting, it’s an excellent catalyst to start being smarter about who our audience is, what they need, and what’s best to share with them. 7. Dissemination, Implementation & Vested Interest Health Hats: So, in a way, that’s not only do we need to think about who the work is for. How do we get it to those people? So how do we disseminate to those people? And then, what are the motivations for implementation? And it seems to me that if I have a vested interest in the answer to the question, I am more likely to share it and to try to figure out what the habits are—the changing habits that the research guides. What are some examples of this that you’ve, in your experience, that either you feel like you hit it like this, worked, or where you felt like we didn’t quite get there? So, what are your thoughts about some practical examples of that? Kirk Knestis: I was laughing because I don’t have so many examples of the former. I’ve got lots of examples of the latter. Health Hats: So start there. 8. Data Parties – The Concrete Solution Kirk Knestis: A good example of how I’ve done that in the past is when clients are willing to tolerate it. We call them different things over the years, like a data party. What we do is convene folks. We used to do it in person, face-to-face, but now that we’re dealing with people spread out across the country and connected virtually, these meetings can be done online. Instead of creating a report that just sits on a shelf or a thumb drive, I prefer to spend that time gathering and organizing the information we collect into a usable form for our audiences. This acts as a formative feedback process rather than just a summative benchmark. Here’s what we’ve learned. You share the information with those who contributed to it and benefit from it, and you ask for their thoughts. We’re observing that this line follows a certain path. Let’s discuss what that means or review all the feedback we received from this stakeholder group. It’s quite different from what we’ve heard from other stakeholders. What do you think is happening there? And let them help add value to the information as it moves from evidence to results. Health Hats: This is the solution to the funder problem. Instead of writing reports for funders, Kirk brings together the actual stakeholders—the people who provided data and benefit from the program. They assist in interpreting the findings in real-time. It’s formative, not summative. It’s immediate, not shelved. 9. No Strings Attached: Reimagining Funder Relationships Health Hats: I think it’s interesting that a thread through this is the role of the funder and the initiative’s governance. I remember that we worked on a couple of projects. I felt like the funder’s expectations were paramount, and the lessons we learned in the process were less important, which aligns with what we didn’t show. Publication bias or something. Sometimes in these initiatives, what’s most interesting is what didn’t work —and that’s not so, anyway. So how? So now that you’re looking forward to working with organizations that are trying to have questions answered, how is that shaping how you’re coaching about governance of these initiatives? Like, where does that come in? Lacy Fabian: Yeah. I think, if we’re talking about an ideal state, there are models, and it will be interesting to see how many organizations really want to consider it, but the idea of no-strings-attached funding. Doesn’t that sound nice, Kirk? The idea being that if you are the funding organization and you have the money, you have the power, you’re going to call the shots. In that way, is it really fair for you to come into an organization like something that Kirk has and start dictating the terms of that money? So, Kirk has to start jumping through the hoops of the final report and put together specific monthly send-ins for that funder. And he has to start doing these things well for that funder. What if we considered a situation where the funder even paid for support to do that for themselves? Maybe they have somebody who comes in, meets with Kirk, or just follows around, shadows the organization for a day or so, collects some information, and then reports it back. But the idea is that the burden and the onus aren’t on Kirk and his staff. Because they’re trying to repair wheelchairs and imagining the types of models we’ve shifted. We’ve also left the power with Kirk and his organization, so they know how to serve their community best. Again, we’ve put the onus back on the funder to answer their own questions that are their needs. I think that’s the part that we’re trying to tease out in the equity: who is this really serving? And if I’m giving to you, but I’m saying you have to provide me with this in return. Again, who’s that for, and is that really helping? Who needs their wheelchair service? And I think that’s the part we need to work harder at unpacking and asking ourselves. When we have these meetings, put out these funding notices, or consider donating to programs, those are the things we have to ask ourselves about and feel are part of our expectations. 10. Balancing Accountability and Flexibility Health Hats: Wow. What’s going through my mind is, I’m thinking, okay, I’m with PCORI. What do we do? We want valuable results. We do have expectations and parameters. Is there an ideal state? Those tensions are real and not going away. But there’s the question of how to structure it to maximize the value of the tension. Oh, man, I’m talking abstractly. I need help thinking about the people who are listening to this. How does somebody use this? So let’s start with: for the researcher? What’s the mindset that’s a change for the researcher? What’s the mindset shift for the people, and for the funder? Let’s start with the researcher. Either of you pick that up. What do you think a researcher needs to do differently? Kirk Knestis: I don’t mind having opinions about this. That’s a fascinating question, and I want to sort of preface what I’m getting ready to say. With this, I don’t think it’s necessary to assume that, to achieve the valuable things Lacy just described, we must completely abrogate all responsibility. I think it would be possible for someone to say, money, no strings attached. We’re never going to get the board/taxpayer/or whoever, for that. Importantly, too, is to clarify a couple of functions. I found that there are a couple of primary roles that are served by the evaluation or research of social services or health programs, for example. The first and simplest is the accountability layer. Did you do what you said you were going to do? That’s operational. That doesn’t take much time or energy, and it doesn’t place a heavy burden on program stakeholders. Put the burden on the program’s managers to track what’s happening and be accountable for what got done. Health Hats: So like milestones along the way? Kirk Knestis: Yes. But there are other ways, other dimensions to consider when we think about implementation. It’s not just the number of deliveries but also getting qualitative feedback from the folks receiving the services. So, you can say, yeah, we were on time, we had well-staffed facilities, and we provided the resources they needed. So that’s the second tier. The set of questions we have a lot more flexibility with at the next level. The so-what kind of questions, in turn, where we go from looking at this term bugs me, but I’ll use it anyway. We’re looking at outputs—delivery measures of quantities and qualities—and we start talking about outcomes: persistent changes for the stakeholders of whatever is being delivered. Attitudes, understandings. Now, for health outcomes—whatever the measures are—we have much more latitude. Focus on answering questions about how we can improve delivery quality and quantity so that folks get the most immediate and largest benefit from it. And the only way we can really do that is with a short cycle. So do it, test it, measure it, improve it. Try it again, repeat, right? So that formative feedback, developmental kind of loop, we can spend a lot of time operating there, where we generally don’t, because we get distracted by the funder who says, “I need this level of evidence that the thing works, that it scales.” Or that it demonstrates efficacy or effectiveness on a larger scale to prove it. I keep wanting to make quotas, right, to prove that it works well. How about focusing on helping it work for the people who are using it right now as a primary goal? And that can be done with no strings attached because it doesn’t require anything to be returned to the funder. It doesn’t require that deliverable. My last thought, and I’ll shut up. 11. Where the Money Actually Goes Kirk Knestis: A study ages ago, and I wish I could find it again, Lacy. It was in one of the national publications, probably 30 years ago. Health Hats: I am sure Lacy’s going to remember that. Kirk Knestis: A pie chart illustrated how funds are allocated in a typical program evaluation, with about a third going to data collection and analysis, which adds value. Another third covers indirect costs, such as keeping the organization running, computers, and related expenses. The remaining third is used to generate reports, transforming the initial data into a tangible deliverable. If you take that third use much more wisely, I think you can accomplish the kind of things Lacy’s describing without, with, and still maintain accountability. Health Hats: This is GOLD. The 1/3: 1/3: 1/3 breakdown is memorable, concrete, and makes the problem quantifiable. Once again, 1/3 each for data collection and analysis, keeping the organization alive, and writing reports. 12. The Pendulum Swings Lacy Fabian: And if I could add on to what Kirk had said, I think one of the things that comes up a lot in the human services research space where I am is this idea of the pendulum swing. It’s not as though we want to go from a space where there are a lot of expectations for the dollars, then swing over to one where there are none. That’s not the idea. Can we make sure we’re thinking about it intentionally and still providing the accountability? So, like Kirk said, it’s that pause: do we really need the reports, and do we really need the requirements that the funder has dictated that aren’t contributing to the organization’s mission? In fact, we could argue that in many cases, they’re detracting from it. Do we really need that? Or could we change those expectations, or even talk to our funder, as per the Fundee, to see how they might better use this money if they were given more freedom, not to have to submit these reports or jump through these hoops? And I believe that’s the part that restores that equity, too, because it’s not the funder coming in and dictating how things will go or how the money will be used. It’s about having a relational conversation, being intentional about what we’re asking for and how we’re using the resources and then being open to making adjustments. And sometimes it’s just that experimentation: I think of it as, we’re going to try something different this time, we’re going to see if it works. If it doesn’t work, it probably won’t be the end of the world. If it does, we’ll probably learn something that will be helpful for next time. And I think there’s a lot of value in that as well. Health Hats: Lacy’s ‘pendulum swing’ wisdom: not anarchy, but intentional. Not ‘no accountability’ but ‘accountability without burden-shifting.’ The move is from the funder dictating requirements to relational conversation. And crucially: willingness to experiment. 13. The Three Relationships: Funder, Researcher, Community Health Hats: Back to the beginning—relationships. So, in a way, we haven’t really —what we’ve talked about is the relationship with funders. Lacy Fabian: True. Health Hats: What is the relationship between researchers and the community seeking answers? We’re considering three different types of relationships. I find it interesting that people call me about their frustrations with the process, and I ask, “Have you spoken with the program officer?” Have you discussed the struggles you’re facing? Often, they haven’t or simply don’t think to. What do you think they’re paid for? They’re there to collaborate with you. What about the relationships between those seeking answers and those studying them—the communities and the researchers? How does that fit into this? Kirk Knestis: I’d like to hear from Lacy first on this one, because she’s much more tied into the community than the communities I have been in my recent practices. 14. Maintaining Agency Health Hats: I want to wrap up, and so if. Thinking about people listening to this conversation, what do you think is key that people should take away from this that’ll, in, in either of the three groups we’ve been talking about, what is a lesson that would be helpful for them to take away from this conversation? Lacy Fabian: I think that it’s important for the individual always to remember their agency. In their engagements. And so I know when I’m a person in the audience, listening to these types of things, it can feel very overwhelming again to figure out what’s enough, where to start, and how to do it without making a big mistake. I think that all of those things are valid. Most of us in our professional lives who are likely listening to this, we show up at meetings, we take notes. We’re chatting with people, engaging with professional colleagues, or connecting with the community. And I think that we can continue to be intentional with those engagements and take that reflective pause before them to think about what we’re bringing. So if we’re coming into that program with our research hat on, or with our funder hat on, what are we bringing to the table that might make it hard for the person on the other side to have an equitable conversation with us? If you’re worried about whether you’ll be able to keep your program alive and get that check, that’s not a balanced conversation. And so if you are the funder coming in, what can you do to put that at ease or acknowledge it? Suppose you are the person in the community who goes into someone’s home and sees them in a really vulnerable position, with limited access to healthcare services or the things they need. What can you do to center that person, still like in their humanity, and not just this one problem space? And that they’re just this problem because that’s, I think, where we go astray and we lose ourselves and lose our solidarity and connection. So I would just ask that people think about those moments as much as they can. Obviously, things are busy and we get caught up, but finding those moments to pause, and I think it can have that snowball effect in a good way, where it builds and we see those opportunities, and other people see it and they go, Huh, that was a neat way to do it. Maybe I’ll try that too. 15. Listen and Learn Health Hats: Thank you. Kirk. Kirk Knestis: Yeah. A hundred percent. I’m having a tough time finding anything to disagree with what Lacy is sharing. And so I’m tempted just to say, “Yeah, what Lacy said.” But I think it’s important that, in addition to owning one’s agency and taking responsibility for one’s own self, one stands up for one’s own interests. At the same time, that person has to acknowledge that everybody else knows that the three legs of that stool I described earlier have to do the same thing, right? Yeah. So, it’s about a complicated social contract among all those different groups. When the researchers talk to the program participant, they must acknowledge the value of each person’s role in the conversation. And when I, as the new nonprofit manager, am talking to funders, I’ve got to make sure I understand that I’ve got an equal obligation to stand up for my program, my stakeholders, and the ideals that are driving what I’m doing. But at the same time, similarly, respecting the commitment obligation that the funder has made. Because it never stops. The web gets bigger and bigger, right? I had a lovely conversation with a development professional at a community foundation today. And they helped me remember that they are reflecting the interests and wishes of different donor groups or individuals, and there’s got to be a lot of back-and-forth at the end of the day. I keep coming back to communication and just the importance of being able to say, okay, we’re talking about, in our case, mobility. That means this. Are we clear? Everybody’s on the same page. Okay, good. Why is that important? We think that if that gets better, these things will, too. Oh, have you thought about this thing over here? Yeah, but that’s not really our deal, right? So having those conversations so that everybody is using the same lingo and pulling in the same direction, I think, could have a significant effect on all of those relationships. Health Hats: Here’s my list from the listening agency, fear, mistake, tolerance, grace, continual Learning, communication, transparency. Kirk Knestis: and equal dollops of tolerance for ambiguity and distrust of ambiguity. Yes, there you go. I think that’s a pretty good list, Danny. Lacy Fabian: It’s a good list to live by. Health Hats: Thank you. I appreciate this. Reflection Everyone in a relationship faces power dynamics – who's in control and who's not? These dynamics affect trust and the relationship’s overall value, and they can shift from moment to moment. Changing dynamics takes mindfulness and intention. The community wanting answers, the researcher seeking evidence-based answers, and those funding the studies, have a complex relationship. Before this conversation, I focused on the community-research partnership, forgetting it was a triad, not a dyad. The Central Paradox: We have exponentially more information at our disposal for research, yet we’re becoming more disconnected. Lacy identifies this as the core problem: we’ve stopped seeing each other as human beings and lost the touchpoints that enable genuine collaboration—when connection matters most. This is true for any relationship. The Hidden Cost Structure Kirk’s 1/3:1/3:1/3 breakdown is golden—one-third for data collection and analysis (adds value), one-third for organizational operations, and one-third for reports (mostly shelf-ware). The key takeaway: we’re allocating one-third of resources to deliverables that don’t directly benefit the people we’re trying to help. Perhaps more of the pie could be spent on sharing and using results. Three Different “Utilities” Are Competing Kirk explains what most evaluation frameworks hide: funder utility (accountability), research utility (understanding models), and community utility (immediate benefit) are fundamentally different. Until you specify which one you’re serving, you’re likely to disappoint two of the three audiences. Data Parties Solve the Funder Problem Pragmatically. Rather than choosing between accountability and flexibility, data parties and face-to-face analysis let stakeholders interpret findings in real time – the data party. I love that visual. It’s formative, not summative. It’s relational, not transactional. The Funding Question Reverses the Power Dynamic. Currently, funders place the burden of proving impact on programs through monthly reports and compliance documentation. Lacy’s alternative is simpler: what if the funder hired someone to observe the program, gather the information, and report back? This allows the program to stay focused on its mission while the funder gains the accountability they need. But the structure shifts—the program no longer reports to the funder; instead, the funder learns from the program. That’s the difference between equity as a theory and equity as built-in. Related episodes from Health Hats Artificial Intelligence in Podcast Production Health Hats, the Podcast, utilizes AI tools for production tasks such as editing, transcription, and content suggestions. While AI assists with various aspects, including image creation, most AI suggestions are modified. All creative decisions remain my own, with AI sources referenced as usual. Questions are welcome. Creative Commons Licensing CC BY-NC-SA This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms. CC BY-NC-SA includes the following elements: BY: credit must be given to the creator. NC: Only noncommercial uses of the work are permitted. SA: Adaptations must be shared under the same terms. Please let me know. danny@health-hats.com. Material on this site created by others is theirs, and use follows their guidelines. Disclaimer The views and opinions presented in this podcast and publication are solely my responsibility and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute® (PCORI®), its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee. Danny van Leeuwen (Health Hats)
5 STEPS a Day to Feed Body, Mind, and Spirit w/ Dr. Len Lopez5 S.T.E.P.S. a Day...is taking ‘to-do' lists and journaling to the next level by Visually tracking Body, Mind, and Spirit...to Improve Habits and Attitudes. Created by Dr. Len LopezNutrition and fitness expert, Dr. Len Lopez, is the creator of 5 S.T.E.P.S. a Day... a unique ‘to-do' list to help improve your Habits and Attitude by tracking how You Feed Body, Mind, and Spirit. Everyday shade-in One or all 5 S.T.E.P.S. for the action you took and tap into your 'visual' and 'kinesthetic' learning centers to help anchor those better habits and attitude. If you're already tracking your Physical steps or closing your Rings for your PHYSICAL Body... this will be easy, but What am I doing for My Mind and Spirit?Every day ask yourself these 5 questions?SLEEP ----- Did I Sleep/Dream with a Smile?THINK ----- Did I Think Better?EAT ------- Did I Eat Right?PHYSICAL -- Did I Get Physical?SPIRIT ------ Did I work my Spiritual muscles? ....if you did, shade-in that step. By the end of the day... week... month... you can quickly see how good you are at feeding your body, mind, and spirit.It's NOT Rocket Science... It's Feedback and Accountability. In less than 2 minutes you can track and see, if you are doing the things that will make you Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise? Or at least get you to be Bigger, Better, Bolder? Dr. Len also created a TEEN version. The 5 S.T.E.P.S. are the Same - but Different.So, let's learn more about 5 STEPS with Dr. Len LopezPlease welcome...Dr. LenLinks:https://5stepsaday.com/https://www.instagram.com/5stepsadayTags:Accountability,Christianity,Confidence,Daily Discipline,Faith,Habits,Personal Development,Personal Growth,Self Help,Self-Improvement,5 STEPS a Day to Feed Body, Mind, and Spirit w/ Dr,Live Video Podcast Interview,Phantom Electric Ghost Podcast,Interview,PodcastSupport PEG by checking out our Sponsors:Download and use Newsly for free now from www.newsly.me or from the link in the description, and use promo code “GHOST” and receive a 1-month free premium subscription.The best tool for getting podcast guests:https://podmatch.com/signup/phantomelectricghostSubscribe to our Instagram for exclusive content:https://www.instagram.com/expansive_sound_experiments/Subscribe to our YouTube https://youtube.com/@phantomelectricghost?si=rEyT56WQvDsAoRprRSShttps://anchor.fm/s/3b31908/podcast/rssSubstackhttps://substack.com/@phantomelectricghost?utm_source=edit-profile-page
J.J. and Dr. Jeremy Fogel reflect on the oneness of nature, the nature of oneness, and particularism vs. universalism in the thought of Benedict Spinoza, Moses Mendellsohn, and Hermann Cohen. This is the fourth episode in our miniseries about universalism and particularism in Judaism. Over the course of the series we will explore and complicate Jewish attitudes to these categories across the centuries. Follow us on Bluesky @jewishideaspod.bsky.social for updates and insights!Please rate and review the the show in the podcast app of your choice.We welcome all complaints and compliments at podcasts@torahinmotion.org For more information visit torahinmotion.org/podcastsJeremy Fogel is a senior faculty member in the Department of Jewish Philosophy and Talmud at Tel Aviv University. He is also the academic director of Alma Home for Hebrew Culture and a faculty member in the Mandel Program for Leadership in Jewish Culture. In addition, Jeremy lectures on philosophy in a variety of public forums and records popular podcasts on cultural and academic topics. Among his books are "Tel Aviv is Water and Other Seasidian thoughts" (Haba Laor, 2019) and Jewish Universalisms (Brandeis University Press, 2023).
Visit www.joniradio.org for more inspiration and encouragement! --------This Christmas, you can shine the light of Christ into places of darkness and pain with a purchase from the Joni and Friends Christmas catalog. You are sending hope and practical care to people with disabilities, all in the name of Jesus! Thank you for listening! Your support of Joni and Friends helps make this show possible. Joni and Friends envisions a world where every person with a disability finds hope, dignity, and their place in the body of Christ. Become part of the global movement today at www.joniandfriends.org. Find more encouragement on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and YouTube.
Silvester Kasozi, calls Out Language and Attitudes. He challenges the use of terms like "special needs" and "handicapped," explaining how these are exclusionary or derogatory, and insists on person-first language.He questions why assistive technologies for people with disabilities are called "special," but similar tools for non-disabled people are not.Chapters;00:00 Introduction to Sensitivity in Language00:22 Understanding Disability and Barriers01:00 Economic Impact of Disability Inclusion01:34 Personal Experiences and Representation02:57 Guest Background and Organizational Mission04:29 Defining Inclusion and Disability05:40 Creating an Inclusive Environment07:05 Practical Examples and Accessibility13:40 Language and Terminology in Disability21:52 Achieving Equity and Reasonable Accommodation23:26 Economic Impact of Disability Inclusion25:05 Innovative Approaches to Disability Inclusion27:21 Challenges and Opportunities in Disability Policies32:26 Eye Health and Its Role in Inclusion40:08 Promoting Intersectionality and PartnershipsFollow up on LinkedIn with him in his names and check out Light for the World too.Share your feedback on what you think it will take for Uganda to achieve a middle class economy, and inquiries at onuganda@gmail.com or WhatsApp +25678537996. PODCAST DISCLAIMER. The views and opinions expressed in the episode are those of the individuals. They do not represent or reflect the official position of the ON Uganda Podcast, so we do not take responsibility for any ideas expressed by guests during the Podcast episode. You are smart enough to take out what works for you.As of 19.05.25
Israel's US support base is narrowing. Coming at Israel from different directions, US President Donald Trump, increasingly critical Evangelicals, until recently a rock-solid Israeli support base, and influential Make America Great Again torchbearers are chipping away at Israel's standing.
"As the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive." - Colossians 3:13
Betsy and Marcy are joined by TV writer, recluse, and full-blown ghost enthusiast Erin Gibson, co-host of Attitudes! Erin brings her signature chaotic brilliance to some truly bizarro hauntings, and they also dig into some spooky listener stories along the way. Please send us your own true paranormal experiences in either a voice memo or e-mail to funnyfeelingpod@gmail.com. SpectreVision Radio is a bespoke podcast network at the intersection between the arts and the uncanny, featuring a tapestry of shows exploring creativity, the esoteric, and the unknown. We're a community for creators and fans vibrating around common curiosities, shared interests and persistent passions. spectrevisionradio.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
What does it really mean to design your own destiny? In this episode of Legendary Leaders Podcast, host Cathleen O'Sullivan sits down with Donzel Leggett—former Fortune 200 executive, author of Make Your Destiny Happen, and founder of Destiny Development Delta whose career has spanned three decades of transformational global leadership. From his Key West roots to the pivotal moment he walked away from professional football, Donzel shares how he turned missed opportunities and painful kicks in the butt into clarity about his calling. With warmth and honesty, he opens up about the weight of expectations, the courage to challenge them, and how a life plan created at 24 has guided everything since—including losing 90 pounds in four months and bouncing back from a million-dollar business failure that shaped his next chapter. Together, Cathleen and Donzel explore the difference between change and transformation, why spending time with yourself is the most radical act of leadership, and how his Destiny Development Delta model helps people stop leaving life to chance. This conversation is for anyone ready to lead themselves with intention, passion, and purpose. Episode Timeline: 04:49 Growing up in Key West: lessons in diversity and strong women leaders 07:41 College football and missed opportunities to lead teammates 10:12 Creating a life plan at 24—and what destiny really means 15:11 Challenging expectations: when others' dreams don't match your own 23:34 Walking away from professional football and the emotional fallout 30:36 Three pivotal moments: football, fatherhood, and finding his calling 36:14 Recognizing your calling: the feeling you can't ignore 40:45 Why 90% of people can't answer where they want to be in 10 years 47:06 First steps to self-leadership—even when life feels overwhelming 52:19 Getting back on track: losing 90 pounds and finding balance 55:44 The restaurant that failed—and the million-dollar MBA 01:01:20 The Destiny Development Delta model: A-Attitudes and iLead Change 01:04:23 Change vs. transformation: chameleon or butterfly? 01:09:05 Transformation as an iterative journey through life's shifts 01:13:32 What's next: spreading hope around the world Key Takeaway: Creating Your Own Destiny: Donzel challenges the idea that destiny is predetermined—it's something you design by getting clear on what you want, building a life plan, and taking sustained action. Leading Yourself First: Leadership isn't about titles or hierarchy—it's about taking charge of your own life, whether you're an executive, a barber, or a stay-at-home parent. Transformation vs. Change: Real transformation means becoming something different (like a caterpillar to butterfly), not just making adjustments—and it starts with spending time with yourself to uncover what you truly want. The Power of a Life Plan: Donzel created his life plan at 24 and has followed it for over 30 years, showing how vision plus intentional action creates both success and fulfillment. Learning from Failure: From walking away from football to losing a million dollars on a restaurant, Donzel shows how reframing failure as learning and taking accountability fuels growth and resilience. About Donzel Leggett: Donzel Leggett is a global operations and leadership executive with over 30 years of experience leading large-scale teams and operations in consumer products companies, including a 28-year tenure at General Mills. He is the Principal and Founder of Destiny Development Delta, LLC, where he coaches executives and teams to unlock their full potential and build inclusive, high-performing cultures. He is the author of Make Your Destiny Happen, a transformational framework for designing and living a purposeful life. Known for driving exceptional results while uplifting people, his leadership approach centers on authenticity, accountability, and helping others take charge of their destinies. Donzel's mission is to inspire people globally to transform their leadership, envision their future, and take sustained action to make it reality. Connect with Donzel Leggett: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/donzelleggett/ Facebook (Donzel Leggett): https://www.facebook.com/donzel.leggett.9/ Facebook (Destiny Dev Delta): https://www.facebook.com/destinydevdelta Instagram (Donzel Leggett) https://www.instagram.com/donzel_leggett/ Linktree: https://li nktr.ee/destinydevdelta YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@DonzelLeggett Make Your Destiny Happen Petite Podcast: https://feeds.captivate.fm/make-your-destiny-happen/ Website: https://destinydevdelta.com/ Make Your Destiny Happen Book: https://www.makeyourdestinyhappen.com Connect with Cathleen O'Sullivan: Business: https://cathleenosullivan.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cathleen-osullivan/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/legendary_leaders_cathleenos/ FOLLOW LEGENDARY LEADERS ON APPLE, SPOTIFY OR WHEREVER YOU LISTEN TO YOUR PODCASTS.
John 10:15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.” We are known and loved by Jesus as Jesus is known and loved by the Father. We know and love Jesus as Jesus knows and loves the Father. Don't miss this. Jesus is going to unpack this relationship more in John 14. The Father and Son relationship is the pattern and source of the relationship between Jesus and His sheep/disciples/followers. Attitudes of trust and surrender permeate both relationships. This begs the question: Would God see these attitudes of trust and surrender permeating our lives and our relationship with Him? Love flows where trust grows, and it looks like surrender (laying down our lives). Jesus knows us like the Father knows Him. Out of that love relationship (of trust and surrender) between the Father and Son, flows our salvation and our lives, for our lives are hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:3).
On today's episode, Andy answers your questions on how to stop over-preparing and start taking action, how to honor your word while still protecting your time, and how to manage high-skill employees with poor attitudes.
A pedofilia tem sido considerada, pelos discursos sociais, como a ‘mais abjeta' entre as perversões. No discurso médico, é uma patologia e refere-se ao fato de um adulto tomar crianças como objeto sexual. Será a pedofilia um pecado, um crime, uma doença? E como lidar com ela? Esta é a primeira de duas partes.Confira o papo entre o leigo curioso, Ken Fujioka, e o cientista PhD, Altay de Souza.>> OUÇA (52min 52s)* PARTICIPAÇÕES ESPECIAISSvetlanna, ou Lanna, é trabalhadora sexual há 8 anos, voluntária no NEP (Núcleo de Estudos da Рrostituição em Porto Alegre), "putativista". No Twitter: @sv3tlannaJuliana Molina Constantino, psicóloga clínica, forense, escritora e educadora. Na clínica trabalha com adultos vítimas de abuso sexual infantil; na justiça atua conduzindo Depoimentos Especiais e realizando Perícias Psicológicas de crianças e adolescentes em processos de apuração de violência de todos os tipos, mas, principalmente a sexual. No Instagram: @psijuconstantino*Naruhodo! é o podcast pra quem tem fome de aprender. Ciência, senso comum, curiosidades, desafios e muito mais. Com o leigo curioso, Ken Fujioka, e o cientista PhD, Altay de Souza.Edição: Reginaldo Cursino.http://naruhodo.b9.com.br*APOIO: INSIDERIlustríssima ouvinte, ilustríssimo ouvinte do Naruhodo, Seguimos firmes e fortes na Black November INSIDER, a maior promoção da história da marca e o mês mais feliz para quem gosta de se vestir de maneira inteligente! Você já deve ter percebido como as condições do tempo andam malucas: amanhece frio, depois esquenta, depois esfria de novo, quando não chove entre uma coisa e outra...Sabe qual a solução ideal para dias assim? A Tech Long Sleeve Masculina, a camiseta tecnológica INSIDER com mangas longas.Você tem regulação térmica e toque leve, sem passar calor nem passar frio: é garantia de performance em qualquer estação.Na Black November INSIDER, elas podem sair com até 50% de desconto, combinando o cupom NARUHODO com os descontos do site.E você pode aproveitar ainda mais a promoção: entrando no canal de WhatsApp da INSIDER, onde acontecem as FLASH PROMOS, com descontos ainda maiores, por tempo super limitado.Então não deixe pra depois e entre agora mesmo no grupo de Zap no link:https://creators.insiderstore.com.br/NARUHODOWPPBFOu clique no link que está na descrição deste episódio.INSIDER: inteligência em cada escolha.#InsiderStore*REFERÊNCIASPedofilia: revisão médica e repercussões penais https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/2/2136/tde-10042024-121635/en.phpOs árbitros do desejo e os enteados da natureza: controvérsias e ontologias sobre a categoria pedofilia em torno do DSM - 5 https://www.bdtd.uerj.br:8443/handle/1/19240Aspectos Psicológicos dos Protagonistas de Incestohttps://bdtd.ucb.br:8443/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1884/1/Texto%20Completo.pdfParafilias: uma classificação fenomenológicahttps://actaspsiquiatria.es/index.php/actas/article/download/564/821A Review of Academic Use of the Term “Minor Attracted Persons”https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15248380241270028Sexual interest in children among an online sample of men and women: prevalence and correlateshttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24215791/Correlates and moderators of child pornography consumption in a community samplehttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24088812/PSIQUIATRIA E PEDOFILIA: A ORGANIZAÇÃO B4U-ACT E O DIREITO À SAÚDE MENTAL DAS PESSOAS ATRAÍDAS POR MENORES (MAPS)https://proceedings.science/abrascao-2022/trabalhos/psiquiatria-e-pedofilia-a-organizacao-b4u-act-e-o-direito-a-saude-mental-das-pesThe DSM and the Stigmatization of People who Are Attracted to Minorshttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-Kramer-10/publication/365993590_The_DSM_and_the_Stigmatization_of_People_who_Are_Attracted_to_Minors/links/638bd5d7ca2e4b239c8896e1/The-DSM-and-the-Stigmatization-of-People-who-Are-Attracted-to-Minors.pdfChanging public attitudes toward minor attracted persons: an evaluation of an anti-stigma intervention https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13552600.2020.1863486?casa_token=iK-wFTzYUbYAAAAA:UmI5w_4dc4d4C9FU9Z1OCpTp5oVb1CkeC1ygV8rg94GSUCUVG886jSpFi6sD_c8uDJQm4gQudZBIQualitative Analysis of Minor Attracted Persons' Subjective Experience: Implications for Treatment https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2126808?casa_token=uNwM4nBfx9UAAAAA:Jo75nZFTKEtnYsLlbO2k0hBMaSc5iUC2a2hrGyWF_C5kRNI-ghibqhF01eZPhAv8ygWg-OHWAPyfBeing Sexually Attracted to Minors: Sexual Development, Coping With Forbidden Feelings, and Relieving Sexual Arousal in Self-Identified Pedophiles https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2015.1061077?src=recsysA Long, Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignityhttps://books.google.com.br/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SksqEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=(MAPS)+attracted+by+minors&ots=h0RKV2g6vr&sig=39-uleVMpIgO4bkjPKShVScmfh0&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=(MAPS)%20attracted%20by%20minors&f=falseMisrepresenting the “MAP” Literature Does Little to Advance Child Abuse Prevention: A Critical Commentary and Response to Farmer, Salter, and Woodlockhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15248380251332197Outpatient Therapists' Perspectives on Working With Persons Who Are Sexually Interested in Minorshttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-022-02377-6The Terminology of “Minor Attracted People” and the Campaign to De-stigmatize Paedophilia Originated in Pro-pedophile Advocacyhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15248380251332198A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issueshttps://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)61074-4/abstracthttps://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025619611610744Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Childrenhttps://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4317491Intervention Needs in Prison With Pedophile Inmateshttps://www.papelesdelpsicologo.es/pii?pii=3027Child molester or paedophile? Sociolegal versus psychopathological classification of sexual offenders against children https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13552600802133860School sex education, a process for evaluation: methodology and results https://academic.oup.com/her/article-abstract/11/2/205/628476Teachers' Attitudes and Opinions Toward Sexuality Education in School: A Systematic Review of Secondary and High School Teachers https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15546128.2024.2353708‘Chronophilia': Entries of Erotic Age Preference into Descriptive Psychopathologyhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/medical-history/article/chronophilia-entries-of-erotic-age-preference-into-descriptive-psychopathology/1896C08F07CB5F1A428CEEF3E1104586Biological Factors in the Development of Sexual Deviance and Aggression in Males.https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-12464-004Mamilos 123 - Pedofilia (2017)https://open.spotify.com/episode/3RxgeS0ZovQue7lK61TLkiNaruhodo #403 - Por que temos fetiches sexuais?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ET1nIP6WMNaruhodo #433 - Existe amizade entre homens e mulheres? - Parte 1 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFVaBfGaowgNaruhodo #434 - Existe amizade entre homens e mulheres? - Parte 2 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6D1yCni0rcNaruhodo #437 - O termo "macho alfa" faz sentido? - Parte 1 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx1z1R_He_cNaruhodo #438 - O termo "macho alfa" faz sentido? - Parte 2 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNKh0Zd3h_kNaruhodo #399 - Assistir à pornografia vicia?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vByA0QVSOb8Naruhodo #150 - O que é o "No Fap September"?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yWTngyTq1gNaruhodo #325 - Por que nos apaixonamos por vilões? - Parte 1 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9F4Q_jjF88Naruhodo #326 - Por que nos apaixonamos por vilões? - Parte 2 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gtkstkqpUwNaruhodo #320 - Por que nos identificamos com vilões?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH5aTG0xeLwNaruhodo #419 - Maconha faz mal? - Parte 1 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvLTh2bKPiQNaruhodo #420 - Maconha faz mal? - Parte 2 de 2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7wVcGvpoGA*APOIE O NARUHODO!O Altay e eu temos duas mensagens pra você.A primeira é: muito, muito obrigado pela sua audiência. Sem ela, o Naruhodo sequer teria sentido de existir. Você nos ajuda demais não só quando ouve, mas também quando espalha episódios para familiares, amigos - e, por que não?, inimigos.A segunda mensagem é: existe uma outra forma de apoiar o Naruhodo, a ciência e o pensamento científico - apoiando financeiramente o nosso projeto de podcast semanal independente, que só descansa no recesso do fim de ano.Manter o Naruhodo tem custos e despesas: servidores, domínio, pesquisa, produção, edição, atendimento, tempo... Enfim, muitas coisas para cobrir - e, algumas delas, em dólar.A gente sabe que nem todo mundo pode apoiar financeiramente. E tá tudo bem. Tente mandar um episódio para alguém que você conhece e acha que vai gostar.A gente sabe que alguns podem, mas não mensalmente. E tá tudo bem também. Você pode apoiar quando puder e cancelar quando quiser. O apoio mínimo é de 15 reais e pode ser feito pela plataforma ORELO ou pela plataforma APOIA-SE. Para quem está fora do Brasil, temos até a plataforma PATREON.É isso, gente. Estamos enfrentando um momento importante e você pode ajudar a combater o negacionismo e manter a chama da ciência acesa. Então, fica aqui o nosso convite: apóie o Naruhodo como puder.bit.ly/naruhodo-no-orelo
Join us as Pastor preaches in Luke 6:37-42.
J..P. Morgan, Exxon-Mobile, Kellogg's What is Your MONEY Blueprint? Could Generational Patterns Be Affecting You in This Area?Judy Wilkins-Smith is a highly regarded organizational, individual, and family patterns expert. A systemic executive coach, trainer, facilitator, thought partner, and leadership conference and motivational speaker, she has 18 years of expertise in assisting high-performance individuals, Fortune 500 executives, and legacy families to end limiting cycles and reframe challenges into lasting breakthroughs and peak performance. Passionate about visionary leadership and positive, accelerated, global change, Judy uses her ability to understand critical dynamics in personal and organizational systems and the points at which they intersect, to create growth and success. As the Founder of System Dynamics for Individuals and Organizations, she collaborates with individuals and corporate decision-makers to implement innovative, ‘whole system' design elements, ensuring balance, appetite for excellence, passion, and sustained success.She is the author of Decoding Your Emotional Blueprint: A Powerful Guide to Transformation Through Disentangling Multigenerational Patterns(Sounds True, June 2022).©2025 Building Abundant Success!!©2025 All Rights ReservedJoin Me on ~ iHeart Media @ https://tinyurl.com/iHeartBASJoin me on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/yxuy23baAmazon Music ~ https://tinyurl.com/AmzBASAudacy: https://tinyurl.com/BASAud
J.J. and Dr. Menachem Kellner pitch Maimonides against Judah HaLevi and explore the extremes of Jewish universalism and particularism in the middle ages. Thank you to Kestenbaum and Co. for sponsoring today's episode!Click here to see the auction catalogue and place your bids on rare Judaica and Hebraica. This is the third episode in our miniseries about universalism and particularism in Judaism. Over the course of the series we will explore and complicate Jewish attitudes to these categories across the centuries. Follow us on Bluesky @jewishideaspod.bsky.social for updates and insights!Please rate and review the the show in the podcast app of your choice.We welcome all complaints and compliments at podcasts@torahinmotion.org For more information visit torahinmotion.org/podcastsMenachem Kellner is Wolfson Professor Emeritus of Jewish Thought at the University of Haifa and was founding chair of the Department of Jewish Philosophy and Thought at Shalem College, Jerusalem. His most recent book is We Are Not Alone: A Maimonidean Theology of the Other (Academic Studies Press, 2021). In connection with the discussion with JJ, his most relevant book is Maimonides the Universalist: The Ethical Horizons of the Mishneh Torah (Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2020), co-authored with David Gillis.
When relationships get messed up, we clear it up.... "If possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." Romans 12:18
We're big Attitudes! fans over here at Couples Therapy HQ - it's especially been helping us through some difficult times - so we lured Attitudes! co-host and TV writer (Chicken Sisters, Tiny Toons Looniversity) Erin Gibson onto the show with the promise of talking about Slow Horses, but that quickly falls to the wayside as Erin takes us through the rise and fall of her first marriage, how they met, how they ended, and all the nooks and crannies of the relaysh, and as much as we love Slow Horses, we were too into Erin's life to just talk about one of the last few prestige shows streaming! Erin also talks to us about the Santa Fe aesthetic, why people should just give marriage a shot and SO MUCH MORE! PLUS, obvi, we answer YOUR advice questions! If you'd like to ask your own advice questions, call 323-524-7839 and leave a VM or just DM us on IG or Twitter!We're in culture critic and Vulture writer Sean Malin's new book The Podcast Pantheon: 101 Podcasts That Changed How We Listen!ALSO BUY A SUPER CUTE "Open Your Hearts, Loosen Your Butts" mug! And:Support the show on Patreon (two extra exclusive episodes a month!) or gift someone a Patreon subscription! Or get yourself a t-shirt or a discounted Quarantine Crew shirt! And why not leave a 5-star review on Apple Podcasts? Or Spotify? It takes less than a minute! Follow the show on Instagram! Check out CT clips on YouTube!Plus some other stuff! Watch Naomi's Netflix half hour or Mythic Quest! Check out Andy's old casiopop band's lost album or his other podcast Beginnings!Theme song by the great Sammus! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
I spoke with Arnie Arnesen of Attitudes on Democratic messaging. Elizabeth Cocina offers resources and prescient advice on engaging Immigration and ICE.Subscribe to our Newsletter:https://politicsdoneright.com/newsletterPurchase our Books: As I See It: https://amzn.to/3XpvW5o How To Make AmericaUtopia: https://amzn.to/3VKVFnG It's Worth It: https://amzn.to/3VFByXP Lose Weight And BeFit Now: https://amzn.to/3xiQK3K Tribulations of anAfro-Latino Caribbean man: https://amzn.to/4c09rbE
Dating Advice, Attracting Quality Men & Dating Tips For Women Podcast! | Magnetize The Man
Take Our FREE “Magnetize Your Man” Quiz To Get A Loving, Long-Term & Committed Relationship With A Man You Desire ASAP Click: http://MagnetizeYourMan.com/PDCheck out Kevin's other resources here: https://KevinAnthonyCoaching.com/LinkInBioSUBSCRIBE FOR GOOD LUCK IN LOVE!Discover A Powerful Psychological Trigger To Make Any Man DESIRE You: http://TriggerHisDesire.com3 Texts He Can't Resist: http://MagnetizingMessages.comHow To Get A Man To CHASE You For A Relationship: http://iMagnetize.com3 Words That Attract Men Like Crazy: http://FascinationPhrases.comDo This And He FEELS Love For You: http://UltimateLoveRecipe.com3 Female Behaviors That All Men LOVE: https://MagnetizeYourMan.com/go/attractioncodes/video Peek Inside Of The Male Mind: https://MagnetizeYourMan.com/go/insidethemalemind/videoGet Our "Magnetize Your Man" Book On Amazon Here: https://amzn.to/2UZcmveGet Our "Magnetize Your Man" Audiobook Here: http://adbl.co/38uAgoFJoin Our FREE “Magnetize Your Man” Facebook Group: http://MYMFBGroup.comFollow Us On Instagram: https://Instagram.com/MagnetizeYourManFollow Us On TikTok: https://TikTok.com/@MagnetizeYourMan Subscribe To Our Podcast: https://MagnetizeYourMan.buzzsprout.com/shareFollow Us On Facebook: https://Facebook.com/MagnetizeYourManFollow Us On X: https://Twitter.com/MagnetizeMenFollow Us On Threads: https://Threads.net/@MagnetizeYourManCheck Out Our Blog: https://MagnetizeYourMan.com/Blog~ Your Expert Love Coaches, Brody & Antia Boyd ~Husband and wife team Antia & Brody Boyd have been helping thousands of successful women all over the world for over 20 years combined to magnetize their man to share their life with & have a loving, long-term & committed relationship ASAP without loneliness, trust-issues or emotionally unavailable men.Antia studied Attachment Styles & Personality Psychology at U.C. Berkeley, Brody has a degree in Communications & Interpersonal Relationships and they have been keynote speakers on hundreds of stages, radio & TV shows all over the world including Google, the Harvard University Faculty Club and Good Morning San Diego.They have also been featured on ABC Radio, Brides Magazine & The Great Love Debate and for over a decade studied EVERYTHING they could get their hands on in the areas of male psychology, feminine communication & creating an incredible relationship fast without low-confidence, anxiety or rejection.They look forward to helping YOU to attract your man for a happy, healthy and supportive relationship the easy way and becoming one of their newest success stories soon as well! Check Out Antia's Full Love Story: https://MagnetizeYourMan.com/AboutAntia~ Incredible Client Love Stories & Reviews! ~“My man and I are very happy as we are exploring and enjoy our new life together. Our coaching together was very helpful in my ability to stay centered in the reality of a true intimate loving relationship unfolding. It has also helped me in nurturing it too. Thanks so much for your support!” -A. G.“One year since the day my fiancé and I met is just around the corner, and we are now married! We are in love and don't want to live life without one another. I have lived with him for 6 months and have been the happiest I have ever been in my life. Thank you so much for the coaching… I will check in very soon. Lots of love!” -L. W."My guy is so easy to love and be with. It's a treat to share time with him. He now makes me feel so special in his ways. He isn't afraid to be himself with me... the best compliment. LOVE the program, and now I'm learning how to be in a healthy relationship!" ~F. W."I just wanted to leSupport the show
Thank you P. J. Schuster, LadyHistorian, D Witham, Jane B In NC
We're in a lull of current publishing industry news, so Jeff and Rebecca speculate about upcoming book awards, year-end announcements, and the book of the year, as well as touch on the impact of AI on writing. Follow the podcast via RSS, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify. Subscribe to The Book Riot Newsletter for regular updates to get the most out of your reading life. The Book Riot Podcast is a proud member of the Airwave Podcast Network. Discussed in this Episode: Check out Zero to Well-Read! The Book Riot Podcast Patreon New Report Examines Writers' Attitudes toward AI [Publishers Weekly] My Students Use AI. So What? [The Atlantic] The Ten Year Affair by Erin Somers Erin Somers interview on First Edition The Running Ground by Nicholas Thompson Craftland by James Fox Make your Holiday Book Recommendation requests to podcast [at] bookriot.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Last time we spoke about the Changsha fire. Chiang Kai-shek faced a brutal choice: defend Wuhan to the last man or flood the land to slow the invaders. He chose both, pushing rivers and rallying a fractured army as Japanese forces pressed along the Yangtze. Fortresses at Madang held long, but the cost was high—troops lost, civilians displaced, a city's heart burning in the night. Wuhan fell after months of brutal fighting, yet the battle did not break China's will. Mao Zedong urged strategy over martyrdom, preferring to drain the enemy and buy time for a broader struggle. The Japanese, though victorious tactically, found their strength ebbing, resource strains, supply gaps, and a war that felt endless. In the wake of Wuhan, Changsha stood next in the Japanese crosshairs, its evacuation and a devastating fire leaving ash and memory in its wake. Behind these prices, political currents swirled. Wang Jingwei defected again, seeking power beyond Chiang's grasp, while Chongqing rose as a western bastion of resistance. The war hardened into a protracted stalemate, turning Japan from an aggressive assailant into a wary occupier, and leaving China to endure, persist, and fight on. #175 The Soviet-Japanese Border Conflicts Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. So based on the title of this one, you probably can see we are taking a bit of a detour. For quite some time we have focused on the Japanese campaigns into China proper 1937-1938. Now the way the second sino-japanese war is traditionally broken down is in phases. 1937-1938, 1939-1942 and 1942-1945. However there is actually even more going on in China aside from the war with Japan. In Xinjiang province a large full blown Islamic revolution breaks out in 1937. We will be covering that story at a later date, but another significant event is escalating border skirmishes in Manchukuo. Now these border skirmishes had been raging ever since the USSR consolidated its hold over the far east. We talked about some of those skirmishes prior to the Sino-Soviet war in 1929. However when Japan created the puppet government of Manchukuo, this was a significant escalation in tensions with the reds. Today we are going to talk about the escalating border conflicts between the Soviets and Japan. A tongue of poorly demarcated land extends southeast from Hunchun, hugging the east bank of the Tumen River between Lake Khasan to the east and Korea to the west. Within this tongue stands Changkufeng Hill, one of a long chain of highlands sweeping from upstream along the rivers and moors toward the sea. The twin-peaked hill sits at the confluence area several miles northwest of the point where Manchuria, Korea, and the Russian Far East meet. The hill's shape reminded Koreans of their changgo, which is a long snare drum constricted at the center and tapped with the hands at each end. When the Manchus came to the Tumen, they rendered the phonetic sounds into three ideographic characters meaning "taut drum peaks" or Chang-ku-feng. The Japanese admired the imagery and preserved the Chinese readings, which they pronounce Cho-ko-ho. From their eastern vantage, the Russians called it Zaozernaya, "hill behind the lake." Soviet troops referred to it as a sugar-loaf hill. For many years, natives and a handful of officials in the region cultivated a relaxed attitude toward borders and sovereignty. Even after the Japanese seized Manchuria in 1931, the issue did not immediately come to a head. With the expansion of Manchukuo and the Soviet Far East under Stalin's Five-Year plans, both sides began to attend more closely to frontier delimitation. Whenever either party acted aggressively, force majeure was invoked to justify the unexpected and disruptive events recognized in international law. Most often, these incidents erupted along the eastern Manchurian borders with the USSR or along the 350-mile frontier south of Lake Khanka, each skirmish carrying the seeds of all-out warfare. Now we need to talk a little bit about border history. The borders in question essentially dated to pacts concluded by the Qing dynasty and the Tsardom. Between the first Sino-Russian Treaty of Nerchinsk in 1689 and the Mukden Agreement of 1924, there were over a dozen accords governing the borders. Relevant to Changkufeng were the basic 15-article Convention of Peking, supplementing the Tientsin Treaties of November 1860, some maps made in 1861, and the eight-article Hunchun Border Protocol of 1886. By the 1860 treaty, the Qing ceded to Tsarist Russia the entire maritime province of Siberia, but the meaning of "lands south of Lake Khanka" remained rather vague. Consequently, a further border agreement was negotiated in June 1861 known as "the Lake Khanka Border Pact", by which demarcations were drawn on maps and eight wooden markers erected. The border was to run from Khanka along ridgelines between the Hunchun River and the sea, past Suifenho and Tungning, terminating about 6 miles from the mouth of the Tumen. Then a Russo-Chinese commission established in 1886 drew up the Hunchun Border Pact, proposing new or modified markers along the 1860–1861 lines and arranging a Russian resurvey. However, for the Japanese, in 1938, the Chinese or Manchu texts of the 1886 Hunchun agreement were considered controlling. The Soviets argued the border ran along every summit west of Khasan, thereby granting them jurisdiction over at least the eastern slopes of all elevations, including Changkufeng and Shachaofeng. Since the Qing dynasty and the house of Romanov were already defunct, the new sovereignties publicly appealed to opposing texts, and the Soviet side would not concede that the Russian-language version had never been deemed binding by the Qing commissioners. Yet, even in 1938, the Japanese knew that only the Chinese text had survived or could be located. Now both the Chinese and Russian military maps generally drew the frontier along the watershed east of Khasan; this aligned with the 1861 readings based on the Khanka agreement. The Chinese Republican Army conducted new surveys sometime between 1915 and 1920. The latest Chinese military map of the Changkufeng area drew the border considerably closer to the old "red line" of 1886, running west of Khasan but near the shore rather than traversing the highland crests. None of the military delimitations of the border was sanctified by an official agreement. Hence, the Hunchun Protocol, whether well known or not, invaluable or worthless, remained the only government-to-government pact dealing with the frontiers. Before we jump into it, how about a little summary of what became known as the Soviet-Japanese border conflicts. The first major conflict would obviously be the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. Following years of conflict between the Russian Empire and Japan culminating in the costly Battle of Tsushima, Tsar Nicholas II's government sought peace, recognizing Japan's claims to Korea and agreeing to evacuate Manchuria. From 1918 to 1920, the Imperial Japanese Army, under Emperor Taishō after the death of Meiji, assisted the White Army and Alexander Kerensky against the Bolshevik Red Army. They also aided the Czechoslovak Legion in Siberia to facilitate its return to Europe after an Austrian-Hungarian armoured train purportedly went astray. By 1920, with Austria-Hungary dissolved and Czechoslovakia established two years earlier, the Czechoslovak Legion reached Europe. Japan withdrew from the Russian Revolution and the Civil War in 1922. Following Japan's 1919-1920 occupations and the Soviet intervention in Mongolia in 1921, the Republic of China also withdrew from Outer Mongolia in 1921. In 1922, after capturing Vladivostok in 1918 to halt Bolshevik advances, Japanese forces retreated to Japan as Bolshevik power grew and the postwar fatigue among combatants increased. After Hirohito's invasion of Manchuria in 1931–1932, following Taishō's death in 1926, border disputes between Manchukuo, the Mongolian People's Republic, and the Soviet Union increased. Many clashes stemmed from poorly defined borders, though some involved espionage. Between 1932 and 1934, the Imperial Japanese Army reported 152 border disputes, largely tied to Soviet intelligence activity in Manchuria, while the Soviets accused Japan of 15 border violations, six air intrusions, and 20 cases of "spy smuggling" in 1933 alone. Numerous additional violations followed in the ensuing years. By the mid-1930s, Soviet-Japanese diplomacy and trust had deteriorated further, with the Japanese being openly labeled "fascist enemies" at the Seventh Comintern Congress in July 1935. Beginning in 1935, conflicts significantly escalated. On 8 January 1935, the first armed clash, known as the Halhamiao incident, took place on the border between Mongolia and Manchukuo. Several dozen cavalrymen of the Mongolian People's Army crossed into Manchuria near disputed fishing grounds and engaged an 11‑man Manchukuo Imperial Army patrol near the Buddhist temple at Halhamiao, led by a Japanese military advisor. The Manchukuo Army sustained 6 wounded and 2 dead, including the Japanese officer; the Mongols suffered no casualties and withdrew after the Japanese sent a punitive expedition to reclaim the area. Two motorized cavalry companies, a machine‑gun company, and a tankette platoon occupied the position for three weeks without resistance. In June 1935, the first direct exchange of fire between the Japanese and Soviets occurred when an 11‑man Japanese patrol west of Lake Khanka was attacked by six Soviet horsemen, reportedly inside Manchukuo territory. In the firefight, one Soviet soldier was killed and two horses were captured. The Japanese requested a joint investigation, but the Soviets rejected the proposal. In October 1935, nine Japanese and 32 Manchukuoan border guards were establishing a post about 20 kilometers north of Suifenho when they were attacked by 50 Soviet soldiers. The Soviets opened fire with rifles and five heavy machine guns. Two Japanese and four Manchukuoan soldiers were killed, and another five were wounded. The Manchukuoan foreign affairs representative lodged a verbal protest with the Soviet consul at Suifenho. The Kwantung Army of Japan also sent an intelligence officer to investigate the clash. On 19 December 1935, a Manchukuoan unit reconnoitering southwest of Buir Lake clashed with a Mongolian party, reportedly capturing 10 soldiers. Five days later, 60 truck‑borne Mongolian troops assaulted the Manchukuoans and were repulsed, at the cost of three Manchukuoan dead. On the same day, at Brunders, Mongolian forces attempted three times to drive out Manchukuoan outposts, and again at night, but all attempts failed. Further small attempts occurred in January, with Mongolians using airplanes for reconnaissance. The arrival of a small Japanese force in three trucks helped foil these attempts; casualties occurred on both sides, though Mongolian casualties are unknown aside from 10 prisoners taken. In February 1936, Lieutenant-Colonel Sugimoto Yasuo was ordered to form a detachment from the 14th Cavalry Regiment to "drive the Outer Mongol intruders from the Olankhuduk region," a directive attributed to Lieutenant-General Kasai Heijuro. Sugimoto's detachment included cavalry guns, heavy machine guns, and tankettes. They faced a force of about 140 Mongolians equipped with heavy machine guns and light artillery. On February 12, Sugimoto's men drove the Mongolians south, at the cost of eight Japanese killed, four wounded, and one tankette destroyed. The Japanese began to withdraw, but were attacked by 5–6 Mongolian armored cars and two bombers, which briefly disrupted the column. The situation was stabilized when the Japanese unit received artillery support, allowing them to destroy or repel the armored cars. In March 1936, the Tauran incident occurred. In this clash, both the Japanese Army and the Mongolian Army deployed a small number of armored fighting vehicles and aircraft. The incident began when 100 Mongolian and six Soviet troops attacked and occupied the disputed village of Tauran, Mongolia, driving off the small Manchurian garrison. They were supported by light bombers and armored cars, though the bombing sorties failed to inflict damage on the Japanese, and three bombers were shot down by Japanese heavy machine guns. Local Japanese forces counter-attacked, conducting dozens of bombing sorties and finally assaulting Tauran with 400 men and 10 tankettes. The result was a Mongolian rout, with 56 Mongolian soldiers killed, including three Soviet advisors, and an unknown number wounded. Japanese losses were 27 killed and 9 wounded. Later in March 1936, another border clash occurred between Japanese and Soviet forces. Reports of border violations prompted the Japanese Korean Army to send ten men by truck to investigate, but the patrol was ambushed by 20 Soviet NKVD soldiers deployed about 300 meters inside territory claimed by Japan. After suffering several casualties, the Japanese patrol withdrew and was reinforced with 100 men, who then drove off the Soviets. Fighting resumed later that day when the NKVD brought reinforcements. By nightfall, the fighting had ceased and both sides had pulled back. The Soviets agreed to return the bodies of two Japanese soldiers who had died in the fighting, a development viewed by the Japanese government as encouraging. In early April 1936, three Japanese soldiers were killed near Suifenho in another minor affray. This incident was notable because the Soviets again returned the bodies of the fallen servicemen. In June 1937, the Kanchazu Island incident occurred on the Amur River along the Soviet–Manchukuo border. Three Soviet gunboats crossed the river's center line, disembarked troops, and occupied Kanchazu Island. Japanese forces from the IJA 1st Division, equipped with two horse-drawn 37 mm artillery pieces, quickly established improvised firing positions and loaded their guns with both high-explosive and armor-piercing shells. They shelled the Soviet vessels, sinking the lead gunboat, crippling the second, and driving off the third. Japanese troops subsequently fired on the swimming crewmen from the sunken ships using machine guns. Thirty-seven Soviet soldiers were killed, while Japanese casualties were zero. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs protested and demanded the Soviet forces withdraw from the island. The Soviet leadership, apparently shocked by the incident and reluctant to escalate, agreed to evacuate their troops. By 1938 the border situation had deteriorated. The tangled terrain features, mountain, bog, stream, forest, and valley, would have complicated even careful observers' discernment of the old red line drawn in 1886. Fifty years later, the markers themselves had undergone a metamorphosis. Japanese investigators could find, at most, only 14 to 17 markers standing fairly intact between the Tumen estuary and Khanka—roughly one every 25 miles at best. The remainder were missing or ruined; five were found in new locations. Marker "K," for example, was 40 meters deeper inside Manchuria, away from Khanka. Japanese military experts noted that of the 20 markers originally set along the boundaries of Hunchun Prefecture alone, only four could be found by the summer of 1938. The rest had either been wrecked or arbitrarily moved and discarded by Russian or Chinese officials and inhabitants. It is even said that one missing marker could be seen on display in Khabarovsk. The Chinese had generally interpreted the boundary as the road line just west of Khasan, at least in practice. Free road movement, however, had become a problem even 20 years before the Japanese overran Manchuria in 1931–1932 during the so-called Manchurian Incident. The Japanese adopted, or inherited, the Chinese interpretation, which was based on the 1886 agreement on border roads; the key clause held that the frontier west of Khasan would be the road along the lake. Japanese sources emphasize that local residents' anger toward gradual Soviet oppression and penetrations westward into Manchurian territory fueled the conflict. Many natives believed the original boundaries lay east of the lake, but the Soviets adjusted the situation to suit their own convenience. In practice, the Russians were restricting road use just west of Khasan by Manchurian and Korean residents. There was speculation that this was a prelude to taking over the ridgelines, depending on the reaction of the Manchukuoan–Japanese side. Villagers who went to streams or the lake to launder clothing found themselves subjected to sniper fire. Along a 25-mile stretch of road near Shachaofeng, farmers reported coming under fire from new Soviet positions as early as November 1935. Nevertheless, Japanese and Koreans familiar with the Tumen area noted agrarian, seasonal Korean religious rites atop Changkufeng Hill, including fattened pigs sacrificed and changgo drums beaten. Village elders told Japanese visitors in 1938 that, until early the preceding year, no Russians had come as far as Changkufeng Hill. Looking only at the border sector around Changkufeng, the easy days were clearly behind us. In the summer of 1938, Gaimusho "Foreign Ministry" observers described the explosive situation along the Korea–Manchuria–USSR borders as a matter of de facto frontiers. Both sides pressed against each other, and their trigger-happy posture was summed up in the colloquial refrain: "Take another step and we'll let you have it." Near dawn on 13 June 1938, a Manchurian patrol detected a suspicious figure in the fog swirling over Changlingtzu Hill on the Siberian–Manchurian frontier. Challenged at 15 feet, the suspect hurled two pistols to the ground and raised his hands in surrender. At headquarters, the police soon realized this was no routine border-trespassing case. The man was a defector and he was a Russian general, in fact he was the director of all NKVD forces in the Soviet Far East. Beneath a mufti of spring coat and hunting cap, he wore a full uniform with medals. His identification card No. 83 designated him as G. S. Lyushkov, Commissar 3rd Class, countersigned by Nikolai Yezhov, NKVD head in Moscow. Lyushkov was promptly turned over to the Japanese military authorities, who transferred him to Seoul and then to Tokyo under close escort. On 1 July, the Japanese press was permitted to disclose that Lyushkov had sought refuge in Japan. Ten days later, to capitalize on the commissar's notoriety and to confound skeptics, the Japanese produced Lyushkov at a press conference in Tokyo. For the Japanese and foreign correspondents, who met separately with him, Lyushkov described Soviet Far East strength and the turmoil wracking the USSR, because for those of you unfamiliar this was during the Stalinist purges. Clearly, the Japanese had gained a unique reservoir of high-level intelligence and a wealth of materials, including notes scratched in blood by suspects incarcerated at Khabarovsk. A general tightening of Russian frontier security had recently been reported. Natives of Fangchuanting asserted that a Soviet cavalry patrol appeared in June, seemingly for the first time. Contact with Yangkuanping, northwest of Khasan, was severed. More importantly, Japanese Army Signal Corps intelligence detected a surge of Soviet message traffic from the Posyet Bay district. After Lyushkov's defection, a drastic reshuffle in the local Russian command apparently occurred, and responsibility for border surveillance seems to have been reallocated. Japanese records indicate that the Novokievsk security force commander was relieved and the sector garrison replaced by troops from Vladivostok. Gaimusho intelligence also received reports that a border garrison unit had been transferred from Khabarovsk or Chita to the Tumen sector. The Kwantung Army signal monitors also intercepted two significant frontline messages on 6 July from the new Russian local commander in the Posyet region, addressed to Lieutenant General Sokolov in Khabarovsk. Decoded, the messages suggested (1) that ammunition for infantry mortars amounted to less than half the required supply; and (2) a recommendation that higher headquarters authorize Russian elements to secure certain unoccupied high ground west of Khasan. The commander noted terrain advantages and the contemplated construction of emplacements that would command Najin and the Korean railway. As a start, at least one Russian platoon should be authorized to dig in on the highest ground (presumably Changkufeng) and deploy four tons of entanglements to stake out the Soviet claim. Korea Army Headquarters received a telegram from the Kwantung Army on 7 July conveying the deciphered messages. On the same day, the 19th Division in North Korea telephoned Seoul that, on 6 July, three or four Soviet horsemen had been observed reconnoitering Manchurian territory from atop a hill called Changkufeng. The alarming intelligence from the Kwantung Army and the front warranted immediate attention by the Korea Army. Some Kwantung Army officers doubted the significance of the developments, with one intelligence official even suggesting the Russian messages might be a deliberate ploy designed to entrap the Japanese at Changkufeng. On 7–8 July, all staff officers in Seoul convened at army headquarters. The name of Changkufeng Hill was not well known, but maps and other data suggested that neither the Japanese nor the Russians had previously stationed border units in the ridge complex west of Khasan. As early as March 1936, Army Commander Koiso Kuniaki had distributed maps to subordinate units, indicating which sectors were in dispute. No patrol was to enter zones lacking definitive demarcation. Until then, the only Japanese element east of the Tumen was a Manchurian policeman at Fangchuanting. Ownership of the high ground emerged as an early issue. A number of other points were raised by the Kwantung Army: At present, Soviet elements in the area were negligible. The intrusion must not be overlooked. The Russians could be expected to exploit any weakness, and half-measures would not suffice, especially regarding the Japanese defense mission along a 125-mile frontier. In Japanese hands, Changkufeng Hill would be useful, but two excellent observation posts already existed in the neighboring sector of the Manchurian tongue. With dissidence and purges underway, the Russians may have judged it necessary to seal border gaps, particularly after Lyushkov's defection. They may also have sought to control Changkufeng to offset Japanese dominance of the high ground to the north. Soviet seizure of Changkufeng would upset the delicate status quo and could provoke a contest for equivalent observation posts. In broader terms, it mattered little whether the Russians sought a permanent observation post on Changkufeng Hill, which was of relatively minor strategic value. Japan's primary concern lay in the China theater; Changkufeng was peripheral. The Japanese should not expend limited resources or become distracted. The matter required consultation with the high command in Tokyo. In the absence of more comprehensive intelligence, the assembled staff officers concluded that the Korea Army should, at a minimum, ignore or disregard Soviet actions for the time being, while maintaining vigilant observation of the area. The consensus was communicated to Major General Kitano Kenzo, the Korea Army chief of staff, who concurred, and to Koiso. Upon learning that the recommendation advocated a low posture, Koiso inquired only whether the opinion reflected the unanimous view of the staff. Having been assured that it did, he approved the policy. Koiso, then 58, was at the threshold of the routine personnel changes occurring around 15 July. He had just been informed that he would retire and that General Nakamura Kotaro would succeed him. Those acquainted with Koiso perceived him as treating the border difficulties as a minor anticlimax in the course of his command tour. He appeared unemphatic or relaxed as he prepared to depart from a post he had held for twenty-one years. Although neither Koiso nor his staff welcomed the Soviet activities that appeared under way, his reaction likely reflected a reluctance to make decisions that could constrain his soon-to-arrive successor. On 8 July Koiso authorized the dispatch of warnings to the 19th Division at Nanam, to the Hunchun garrison, and to the intelligence branch at Hunchun. These units were instructed to exercise maximum precautions and to tighten frontier security north of Shuiliufeng. In response to the initial appearance of Soviet horsemen at Changkufeng, the Kucheng Border Garrison Unit of the 76th Infantry Regiment maintained close surveillance across the Tumen. By about noon on 9 July, patrols detected approximately a dozen Russian troops commencing construction atop Changkufeng. Between 11 and 13 July, the number of soldiers on the slopes increased to forty; there were also thirty horses and eleven camouflaged tents. Operating in shifts on the western side, thirty meters from the crest, the Russians erected barbed wire and firing trenches; fifty meters forward, they excavated observation trenches. In addition to existing telephone lines between Changkufeng, Lake Khasan, and Kozando, the Russians installed a portable telephone net. Logistical support was provided by three boats on the lake. Approximately twenty kilometers to the east, well within Soviet territory, large forces were being mobilized, and steamship traffic into Posyet Bay intensified. Upon learning of the "intrusion" at Changkufeng on 9 July, Lt. General Suetaka Kamezo, the commander of the 19th Division, dispatched staff officers to the front and prepared to send elements to reinforce border units. The special significance of Suetaka and his division stemmed from a series of unusual circumstances. Chientao Province, the same zone into which Lyushkov had fled and the sector where Soviet horsemen had appeared, fell within Manchukuo geographically and administratively. Yet, in terms of defense, the configuration of the frontier, the terrain, and the transportation network more closely connected the region with North Korea than with southeastern Manchuria. Approximately 80% of the population was of Korean origin, which implied Japanese rather than Manchukuoan allegiance. Consequently, the Korea Army had been made operationally responsible for the defense of Chientao and controlled not only the three-battalion garrison at Hunchun but also the intelligence detachment located there. In the event of war, the Korea Army's mission was defined as mobilization and execution of subsidiary operational tasks against the USSR, under the control and in support of the Kwantung Army. The Korea Army ordinarily possessed two infantry divisions, the 19th in North Korea and the 20th stationed at Seoul, but the 20th Division had already departed for China, leaving only the 20th Depot Division in the capital. Beyond sparse ground units, devoid of armor and with weak heavy artillery, there were only two air regiments in Korea, the nearest being the unit at Hoeryong. The Korea Army was designed to maintain public security within Korea as well as fulfill minimal defensive responsibilities. Such an army did not require a full-time operations officer, and none was maintained. When needed, as in mid-1938, the task fell to the senior staff officer, in this case Colonel Iwasaki Tamio. In peacetime, training constituted the primary focus. Thus, the 19th Division was entrusted with defending northeastern Korea. Its commander, Suetaka, a seasoned infantryman, resented the fact that his elite force had never engaged in combat in China. He intensified training with zeal, emphasizing strict discipline, bravery, aggressiveness, and thorough preparation. Japanese veterans characterized him as severe, bullish, short-tempered, hot-blooded, highly strung, unbending, and stubborn. Nonetheless, there was widespread respect for his realistic training program, maintained under firm, even violent, personal supervision. His men regarded Suetaka as a professional, a modern samurai who forged the division into superb condition. Privately, he was reputed for sensitivity and warmth; a Japanese phrase "yakamashii oyaji" captures the dual sense of stern father and martinet in his character. At the outset, however, Suetaka displayed little aggression. Although not widely known, he did not welcome the orders from army headquarters to deploy to the Tumen. Until late July, he remained somewhat opposed to the notion of dislodging the Soviets from the crest, a proposition arising from neither the division staff nor, initially, Suetaka himself. Colonel Sato noted that, for a week after reports of Soviet excavation at Changkufeng, the division's response was limited to preparations for a possible emergency, as they perceived the matter as a local issue best settled through diplomacy. Korea Army officers acknowledged that, around the time the Soviets consolidated their outpost strength at Changkufeng, an informal and personal telegram arrived in Seoul from a Kwantung Army Intelligence field-grade officer who specialized in Soviet affairs. If the Korea Army hesitated, the Kwantung Army would be obliged to eject the Russians; the matter could not be ignored. While the telegram did not demand a reply and struck several officers as presumptuous and implausible, the message was promptly shown to Koiso. Koiso was driven to immediate action, he wired Tokyo asserting that only the Korea Army could and would handle the incident. One staff officer recalled "We felt we had to act, out of a sense of responsibility. But we resented the Kwantung Army's interference." The Korea Army staff convened shortly after receipt of the unofficial telegram from Hsinking. Based on the latest intelligence from the division dated 13 July, the officers prepared an assessment for submission to the army commander. The hypotheses were distilled into three scenarios: The USSR, or the Far East authorities, desires hostilities. Conclusion: Slightly possible. The USSR seeks to restrain Japan on the eve of the pivotal operations in China: the major Japanese offensive to seize Hankow. Conclusion: Highly probable. The Posyet district commander is new in his post; by occupying the Changkufeng ridges, he would demonstrate loyalty, impress superiors, and seek glory. Conclusion: Possible. Late on 13 July or early on 14 July, Koiso approved the dispatch of a message to the vice minister of war, and the Kwantung Army chief of staff: "Lake Khasan area lies in troublesome sector USSR has been claiming . . . in accordance with treaties [said Secret Message No. 913], but we interpret it to be Manchukuoan territory, evident even from maps published by Soviet side. Russian actions are patently illegal, but, considering that area does not exert major or immediate influence on operations [Japan] is intending and that China Incident is in full swing, we are not going to conduct counterattack measures immediately. This army is thinking of reasoning with Soviets and requesting pullback, directly on spot. . . . In case Russians do not accede in long run, we have intention to drive Soviet soldiers out of area east of Khasan firmly by use of force." The message concluded with a request that the Tokyo authorities lodge a formal protest with the USSR, on behalf of Manchukuo and Japan, and guide matters so that the Russians would withdraw quickly. Dominant in Japanese high command thinking in 1938 was the China theater; the Changkufeng episode constituted a mere digression. A sequence of Japanese tactical victories had preceded the summer: Tsingtao fell in January; the Yellow River was reached in March; a "reformed government of the Republic of China" was installed at Nanking several weeks later; Amoy fell in early May; Suchow fell on the 20th. With these gains, northern and central fronts could be linked by the Japanese. Yet Chinese resistance persisted, and while public statements anticipated imminent Chinese dissension, private admissions acknowledged that the partial effects of Suchow's fall were ominous: control might pass from Chiang Kai-shek to the Communists, Chinese defiance might intensify, and Soviet involvement could ensue. A Hankow drive appeared desirable to symbolize the conclusion of the military phase of hostilities. The Japanese and their adversaries were in accord regarding the importance of the summer and autumn campaigns. Even after Suchow's fall, the government discouraged public insinuations that enemy resistance was collapsing; when Chiang addressed the nation on the first anniversary of hostilities, Premier Konoe prophetically proclaimed, "The war has just begun." Colonel Inada Masazum served as the Army General Staff's principal figure for the Changkufeng affair, occupying the position of chief of the 2nd Operations Section within the Operations Bureau in March 1938. A distinguished graduate of the Military Academy, Inada completed the War College program and held a combination of line, instructional, and staff assignments at the War College, the Army General Staff, and the War Ministry. He was recognized as a sharp, highly capable, and driveful personality, though some regarded him as enigmatic. Following the capture of Suchow, Imperial General Headquarters on 18 June ordered field forces to undertake operational preparations for a drive to seize the Wuhan complex. Inada favored a decisive move aimed at achieving a rapid political settlement. He acknowledged that Soviet intervention in 1938, during Japan's involvement in China, would have been critical. Although Japanese forces could still defeat the Chinese, an overextended Japanese Army might be fatally compromised against the Russians. Soviet assistance to China was already pronouncedly unwelcome. The Soviets were reported to possess roughly 20 rifle divisions, four to five cavalry divisions, 1,500 tanks, and 1,560 aircraft, including 300 bombers with a range of approximately 3,000 kilometers, enabling reach from Vladivostok to Tokyo. Soviet manpower in Siberia was likely near 370,000. In response, Japanese central authorities stressed a no-trouble policy toward the USSR while seeking to "wall off" the border and bolster the Kwantung Army as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, the envisaged correction of the strategic imbalance could not occur before 1943, given shortages in ammunition, manpower, and materiel across existing theaters in China. By the end of 1937 Japan had committed 16 of its 24 divisions to China, bringing the standing force to roughly 700,000. Army General Staff planners reallocated three ground divisions, intended for a northern contingency, from north to central China, even as the Kwantung Army operated from a less favorable posture. Attitudes toward the northern problem varied within senior military circles. While concern persisted, it was not universal. As campaigns in China widened, planning at the high command level deteriorated, propagating confusion and anxiety to field armies in China. The Japanese Navy suspected that the Army general staff was invoking the USSR as a pretext for broader strategic aims—namely, to provoke a more consequential confrontation with the USSR while the Navy contended with its own strategic rivalries with the Army, centered on the United States and Britain. Army leaders, however, denied aggressive intent against the USSR at that time. The Hankow plan encountered substantial internal opposition at high levels. Private assessments among army planners suggested that a two-front war would be premature given operational readiness and troop strength. Not only were new War Ministry officials cautious, but many high-ranking Army general staff officers and court circles shared doubts. Aggressive tendencies, influenced by subordinates and the Kwantung Army, were evident in Inada, who repeatedly pressed Tada Shun, the deputy army chief of staff, to endorse the Wuhan drive as both necessary and feasible, arguing that the USSR would gain from Japan's weakening without incurring substantial losses. Inada contended that Stalin was rational and that time favored the USSR in the Far East, where industrial buildup and military modernization were ongoing. He argued that the Soviet purges impeded opportunistic ventures with Japan. He posited that Nazi Germany posed a growing threat on the western front, and thus the USSR should be avoided by both Japan, due to China and Russia, due to Germany. While most of the army remained engaged in China, Tada did not initially share Inada's views; only after inspecting the Manchurian borders in April 1938 did he finally align with Inada's broader vision, which encompassed both northern and Chinese considerations. During this period, Inada studied daily intelligence from the Kwantung Army, and after Lyushkov's defection in June, reports suggested the Soviets were following their sector commander's recommendations. Russian troops appeared at Changkufeng, seemingly prepared to dig in. Inada recollects his reaction: "That's nice, my chance has come." I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. The simmering Soviet–Japanese border clashes centered on Changkufeng Hill near Lake Khanka, set within a broader history of contested frontiers dating to Qing and Tsarist treaties. Japan, prioritizing China, considered Changkufeng peripheral but ready to confront Soviet encroachment; Moscow aimed to consolidate border gains, with high-level war planning overlaying regional skirmishes. Conflict loomed over Manchuria.
We would love to hear from you! Please send us your comments here. --------This Christmas, you can shine the light of Christ into places of darkness and pain with a purchase from the Joni and Friends Christmas catalog. You are sending hope and practical care to people with disabilities, all in the name of Jesus! Thank you for listening! Your support of Joni and Friends helps make this show possible. Joni and Friends envisions a world where every person with a disability finds hope, dignity, and their place in the body of Christ. Become part of the global movement today at www.joniandfriends.org. Find more encouragement on Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and YouTube.
In this episode of Supply Chain Now, host Scott Luton and special guest co-host Maria Villablanca welcome Dr. Dinesh Davè, Professor & Director of Supply Chain Management at Appalachian State University, and Evan Junker, Chief Growth Officer at SPARQ360, to unpack insights from the 2025 Supply Chain Trends and Attitudes Report. The annual study, conducted by Appalachian State and SPARQ360, surveys hundreds of supply chain managers across the U.S. to reveal where leaders are investing, from AI and visibility platforms to sustainability and risk management.Together, the panel discusses how familiarity and adoption of AI are rising, why the “ambition-action gap” still challenges sustainability progress, and what's driving executives to balance cost efficiency, resilience, and environmental responsibility. They also explore how partnerships, collaboration, and customer-centered priorities are emerging as the new competitive advantage. Packed with practical insights and forward-looking data, this conversation offers a clear snapshot of where supply chain strategy is heading in 2025 and beyond.Jump into the conversation:(00:00) Intro(01:08) Survey overview and key findings(02:47) Fun warmup: favorite food and drink spots(05:52) Appalachian State University supply chain program(07:37) SPARQ360 and its role in the supply chain(13:30) AI in supply chain: priorities and challenges(19:03) Broader technology investments and priorities(24:21) Data transformation and security(24:37) Sustainability initiatives and drivers(26:09) Political and regulatory impacts(26:52) Statistical analysis and findings(27:48) The ambition-action gap(28:38) Technology's role in sustainability(29:01) Tariffs and geopolitical shifts(33:16) Survey surprises and observations(42:00) Future directions and international expansion(43:10) Connecting with the panelResources:Connect with Dr. Dinesh Davè: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-dinesh-dave-a85b6713/ Learn more about Appalachian State University: https://www.appstate.edu/academics/majors/id/supply-chain-management Connect with Evan Junker: www.linkedin.com/in/evanjunker Learn more about SPARQ360: https://luna-resume.com/Connect with Maria Villablanca: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariavillablanca/Explore Maria's website: https://www.mariavillablanca.com/ Learn more about Transform Talks: https://futureinsights.org/transform-talks/ Read the 2025 Supply Chain Trends and Attitudes Report: https://sparq360.com/trendsandattitudes/ Connect with Scott Luton:
In this episode of The Executive Leadership Podcast, we sit down with Dr. Tim Elmore, founder and CEO of Growing Leaders and author of The Future Begins with Z, to explore one of the most pressing challenges — and greatest opportunities — facing today's executives: leading Generation Z.As the age of authority declines and the age of maturity rises, leaders are navigating a new reality. Gen Z employees bring intuition, innovation, and digital fluency — yet often enter the workforce still developing key soft skills and emotional intelligence. With millions of seasoned workers retiring and a smaller generation stepping in to fill the gap, getting this right isn't optional — it's essential.Dr. Elmore shares nine practical strategies for engaging, developing, and retaining Gen Z talent, including how to:Interview and onboard younger employees for long-term successDeliver firm feedback while protecting fragile confidenceMotivate, mentor, and manage across generationsEquip emerging leaders whose EQ matches their IQIf you're ready to move from frustration to fascination — and turn generational differences into a competitive advantage — this conversation is for you.The future of leadership begins now… and it begins with Z.About Tim ElmoreDr. Tim Elmore is founder of Growing Leaders (GrowingLeaders.com), an Atlanta‐based non‐profit organization created to develop emerging leaders. His work grew out of 20 years of serving alongside Dr. John C. Maxwell. Elmore has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, USA Today, Psychology Today, and he's been featured on CNN's Headline News, Fox Business, Newsmax TV and Fox and Friends to talk about leading multiple generations in the marketplace. He has written over 35 books, including Habitudes: Images That Form Leadership Habits and Attitudes, Eight Paradoxes of Great Leadership, and A New Kind of Diversity: Making the Different Generations on Your Team a Competitive Advantage. His latest book, The Future Begins with Z: Nine Strategies to Lead Generation Z As They Upset the Workplace, is out now. You can find his work at: TimElmore.com.
Friend of Sinners | Week 4 | The Heart of the Issue | Pastor Tyler Sollie | Life Center Tacoma There are two ways to experience distance: Self-serving ACTIONS and self-righteous ATTITUDES Jesus came to save those who are BROKEN BY REBELLION and those who are BLINDED BY RELIGION. Luke 15:1-2, 11, 23-32 (CSB) ACTIONS can take you to a distant LAND. ATTITUDES can keep you in a distant and defensive POSTURE. The Father PURSUES BOTH the BRING us in to His joy. "For certain types of people, grace is not only amazing, it is also infuriating." -Kenneth Bailey Proverbs 4:23 (CSB) What am I most ANGRY about? Ephesians 4:26-27 (CSB) Who do I currently RESENT that I haven't carried in PRAYER? Am I KEEPING SCORE - measuring my OBEDIENCE against others? 2 Corinthians 10:12 (NLT) Is there anyone I have already CUT OFF through CONDEMNATION? Is there an ATTITUDE in me that is creating DISTANCE? Your WORST days are never so BAD that you are outside of the REACH of God's grace. Your BEST days are never so GOOD that you are outside of the NEED of God's grace.
Click the icon below to listen.
Click the icon below to listen.
Click the icon below to listen.
Click the icon below to listen.
Click the icon below to listen.
Click the icon below to listen.
Click the icon below to listen.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
